Trump has to retain Michigan (Ds kicked the living fucking shit out of the GOP in 2018) and Pennsylvania. Wisconsin and NC are toss ups because of the GOPs successes stealing power.
I don’t see any state that’s gone blue recently flipping. Virginia is the closest and I feel like the GOP there is such a train wreck it should be safe. I highly doubt Minnesota even gets that close to flipping again.
Hmph. So what about the congressional part of the 2020 elections? Will the democrats finally get the majority in both house and senate? Cause I don't care the least bit who's the democratic president unless that happens
It's not on topic I think, you're probably welcome to make a thread if you want.
Thanks for the notice. I don't really feel like I have an argument in me there, so if nobody knows, at this point, it's fine.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Trump has to retain Michigan (Ds kicked the living fucking shit out of the GOP in 2018) and Pennsylvania. Wisconsin and NC are toss ups because of the GOPs successes stealing power.
I don’t see any state that’s gone blue recently flipping. Virginia is the closest and I feel like the GOP there is such a train wreck it should be safe. I highly doubt Minnesota even gets that close to flipping again.
Part of me thinks that Warren both including the military as part of her green policy and also not just spending it's funds elsewhere is to keep NOVA on board while her populism will play much better in the midwest
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Trump has to retain Michigan (Ds kicked the living fucking shit out of the GOP in 2018) and Pennsylvania. Wisconsin and NC are toss ups because of the GOPs successes stealing power.
I don’t see any state that’s gone blue recently flipping. Virginia is the closest and I feel like the GOP there is such a train wreck it should be safe. I highly doubt Minnesota even gets that close to flipping again.
Part of me thinks that Warren both including the military as part of her green policy and also not just spending it's funds elsewhere is to keep NOVA on board while her populism will play much better in the midwest
Think of all the National Emergencies Warren gets to declare. Climate change, voter suppression...
Idk if Warren can beat Trump, but Bernie just cannot. Harris cannot. Biden cannot.
Yang has a better chance of beating Trump in the general.
Theres plenty of polling indicating that Sanders wins the general solidly. I think youre projecting your own beliefs on the nation as a whole.
Bernie is my second choice and I fully believe a platform like Warren's has a chance of winning because he is out there.
While there is very little difference in the overall scope and aim in their platforms (if they went to go form their own party divorced from all prior labels they would easily belong in the same tent) but the fact that Bernie is out there calling himself a socialist is doing two things.
1.) It is absolutely destigmatizing both the policy and the label itself
2.) But the biggest movement on that label is with young folks, who much like the Boomers are being failed by capitalism but unlike the Boomers they didn't vote for all the Nixon/Reagan bullshit and tell themselves that it was great.
I think Bernie is in trouble with the general electorate and generally speaking more vulnerable with smears.
Now mind you I think he does well with those smears and dismissing them. And I will admit that there probably hasn't been a better opportunity to elect a socialist since the red scare. But I think it's a bridge too far.
And I can understand for people to the left of me/more fully committed to Bernie that they might disagree and want to push for this moment, but I have serious doubts he can win.
That being said I think he has better odds then Beto, Biden, Harris and maybe Booker too.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Can beat Trump and absolutely will beat Trump are not the same thing.
the 2016 election should at long last have ended 'electability' as a point of consideration tbh
any of the remaining viable-ish candidates could win; trying to figure out which has the best chance is impossible at this point
You could easily use electable- the moniker of the pundit class and viable interchangeably here since they mean the same thing.
And so what if someone expresses an opinion on who they think has the best shot and advocates voting that line? That's probably a solid chunk of primary voters in general with a majority giving their preferred candidate that status by virtue of the fact that their candidate is automatically the most likely win somehow.
Like if I thought Warren was as likely to win as I thought Beto was, I would be stupid to go around advocating for her.
Do I have any special insight into who is going to win? No, of course not. Can I at least explain my rationalization? Until a mod tells me not to I suppose.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Idk if Warren can beat Trump, but Bernie just cannot. Harris cannot. Biden cannot.
Yang has a better chance of beating Trump in the general.
Theres plenty of polling indicating that Sanders wins the general solidly. I think youre projecting your own beliefs on the nation as a whole.
There's polling that shows all the candidates winning the popular vote.
I don't think we've gotten a proper per-state breakdown yet for most of them.
Not that I'm agreeing with the grandparent comment, but it's best to remember the game we're playing.
Yeah, national polls mean pretty much fuck all at this point. Getting state level individual matchups in battleground states would be the only thing even kind of useful, but there haven't been a lot of those, and even if there were, they're comparing a known and disliked guy against someone who has not been subjected to six months of negative campaigning.
You could also probably craft a model like was used in 2018, that basically assumes the states break down like they did in 2016, and then uniformly increase the popular vote margin in favor of the Democrat until enough states flip to take the election. Whatever popular vote margin that happens at, that's what you need to get to.
None of these are super predictive, though. It's all guesswork until we get to the general election.
Tl;dr: "X can't win"/"X can't lose" is bullshit conjecture at this point, because it's impossible to even build a decent model to measure that right now.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It's trying to predict how other people are gonna vote I guess
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's trying to predict how other people are gonna vote I guess
"Electability" is a measure of how much the people who book guests on cable news shows would like you to be president.
If that's it, then who cares? The actual people that vote will continue to show that the media doesn't know what it's talking about
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's trying to predict how other people are gonna vote I guess
"Electability" is a measure of how much the people who book guests on cable news shows would like you to be president.
If that's it, then who cares? The actual people that vote will continue to show that the media doesn't know what it's talking about
Yeah it doesn't really work like that. Voters don't really decide based on policy.
Whatever they vote on, they don't trust media. Or maybe most people still do; I don't.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
the 2016 election should at long last have ended 'electability' as a point of consideration tbh
any of the remaining viable-ish candidates could win; trying to figure out which has the best chance is impossible at this point
You could easily use electable- the moniker of the pundit class and viable interchangeably here since they mean the same thing.
And so what if someone expresses an opinion on who they think has the best shot and advocates voting that line? That's probably a solid chunk of primary voters in general with a majority giving their preferred candidate that status by virtue of the fact that their candidate is automatically the most likely win somehow.
Like if I thought Warren was as likely to win as I thought Beto was, I would be stupid to go around advocating for her.
Do I have any special insight into who is going to win? No, of course not. Can I at least explain my rationalization? Until a mod tells me not to I suppose.
the point is that no reasonable basis exists for thinking one candidate is more likely to win than another, especially when we're talking about the top tier candidates (I personally exclude such as yang and williamson from the 'viable' grouping.) We don't have anywhere near enough information to say with any specificity that Biden is more likely to win than Warren or Sanders, or that they are more likely to win than he is even if we do a fictitious 'if the election were held today' type of scenario. Aside from the general impossibility of saying that one candidate will win 7/10 times and another 6/10, there's no way for us to know how the events of the next year will help or hurt each candidate's chances.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Maybe? Biden's support among black voters is heavily generational, which is what we'd expect for any other group as well. Black voters just aren't the left wing of the party anymore.
Black people vote 90% Democrat. That presumably means that a lot of black voters are quite "conservative", just not willing to vote for a party that considers them subhuman.
I’m wary of ascribing general motivations based on race, even delineated by generation
Yes, black people typically vote Democrat, and are mostly supporting Biden, but I think taking it beyond statistics and trying to explain why in a general sense is kinda weird and gross
I mean I don't think black voters as a block have really moved much. They used to be the left wing of the party back when it was the 90s and the party was very conservative and a lot of white voters have moved left past them.
"Under my plan, we will establish a national rent control standard, capping annual rent increases throughout the country at no more than 1.5 times the rate of inflation or 3 percent whichever is higher."
- @BernieSanders
"Under my plan, we will establish a national rent control standard, capping annual rent increases throughout the country at no more than 1.5 times the rate of inflation or 3 percent whichever is higher."
- @BernieSanders
"Under my plan, we will establish a national rent control standard, capping annual rent increases throughout the country at no more than 1.5 times the rate of inflation or 3 percent whichever is higher."
- @BernieSanders
Gendell works for the Sanders campaign
Can the federal government even do that?
Wouldn't be the first time the federal government has implemented price controls.
Should be noted in the same speech he called for significant increases in public housing expenditures.
Styrofoam Sammich on
+2
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
"Under my plan, we will establish a national rent control standard, capping annual rent increases throughout the country at no more than 1.5 times the rate of inflation or 3 percent whichever is higher."
- @BernieSanders
Gendell works for the Sanders campaign
Can the federal government even do that?
Probably not, but frankly the interstate commerce clause has been stretched so far past the breaking point that I honestly don't really think the ostensible limits on federal power are meaningful anymore.
Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.
Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.
I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.
You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.
And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
"Under my plan, we will establish a national rent control standard, capping annual rent increases throughout the country at no more than 1.5 times the rate of inflation or 3 percent whichever is higher."
- @BernieSanders
Gendell works for the Sanders campaign
Can the federal government even do that?
Seems like a pretty big no.
They could probably try to influence with funding the way they do with speed limits and all, but a “the rent is too damn high” bill doesn’t seem viable.
Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.
I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.
You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.
And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.
Yes. Multiple states have or have had price controls.
Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.
I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.
You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.
And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.
Yes. Multiple states have or have had price controls.
Price controls on what?
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited September 2019
Housing supply has interstate commerce implications for sure. If violence against women and growing your own pot for your own consumption can be labelled as interstate commerce issues then I have no trouble believing that rent control can too.
However, rent control is a bad policy, so despite being a Sanders fan generally I hate this.
Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.
I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.
You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.
And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.
Yes. Multiple states have or have had price controls.
Price controls on what?
Oil, energy, etc. Price controls on what don't really matter to the point of authority. If a state can place price controls it can place price controls.
I’m wary of ascribing general motivations based on race, even delineated by generation
Yes, black people typically vote Democrat, and are mostly supporting Biden, but I think taking it beyond statistics and trying to explain why in a general sense is kinda weird and gross
They aren’t a monolith
Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.
I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.
You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.
And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.
Yes. Multiple states have or have had price controls.
Price controls on what?
Oil, energy, etc. Price controls on what don't really matter to the point of authority. If a state can place price controls it can place price controls.
States can do whatever isn't unconstitutional. The Federal grant of power isn't that broad, in theory. Relics from back when we were supposed to be 13 independant governments that sorta worked together instead of our current set up.
Yeah, but usually those price controls [tangentially] touch interstate commerce. I can't imagine how a purely local issue like landlord-tenancy could be argued as interstate commerce. Second even if he was somehow able to pass that, I can't imagine a court anywhere that upholds that.
I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.
You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.
And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.
Random thought: Landlording partially works because you can write off expenses on your federal taxes right? So if you go out of the rent control scheme you can no longer do that. I'd think that'd be enough in most places but probably not in the NYC like places.
Not a huge fan of the general idea though. Rent Control has a huge amount of issues in implementation, though I understand the motivation.
Posts
I don’t see any state that’s gone blue recently flipping. Virginia is the closest and I feel like the GOP there is such a train wreck it should be safe. I highly doubt Minnesota even gets that close to flipping again.
Thanks for the notice. I don't really feel like I have an argument in me there, so if nobody knows, at this point, it's fine.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Part of me thinks that Warren both including the military as part of her green policy and also not just spending it's funds elsewhere is to keep NOVA on board while her populism will play much better in the midwest
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Think of all the National Emergencies Warren gets to declare. Climate change, voter suppression...
Theres plenty of polling indicating that Sanders wins the general solidly. I think youre projecting your own beliefs on the nation as a whole.
There's polling that shows all the candidates winning the popular vote.
I don't think we've gotten a proper per-state breakdown yet for most of them.
Not that I'm agreeing with the grandparent comment, but it's best to remember the game we're playing.
Bernie is my second choice and I fully believe a platform like Warren's has a chance of winning because he is out there.
While there is very little difference in the overall scope and aim in their platforms (if they went to go form their own party divorced from all prior labels they would easily belong in the same tent) but the fact that Bernie is out there calling himself a socialist is doing two things.
1.) It is absolutely destigmatizing both the policy and the label itself
2.) But the biggest movement on that label is with young folks, who much like the Boomers are being failed by capitalism but unlike the Boomers they didn't vote for all the Nixon/Reagan bullshit and tell themselves that it was great.
I think Bernie is in trouble with the general electorate and generally speaking more vulnerable with smears.
Now mind you I think he does well with those smears and dismissing them. And I will admit that there probably hasn't been a better opportunity to elect a socialist since the red scare. But I think it's a bridge too far.
And I can understand for people to the left of me/more fully committed to Bernie that they might disagree and want to push for this moment, but I have serious doubts he can win.
That being said I think he has better odds then Beto, Biden, Harris and maybe Booker too.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Nobody sets out to pick a loser.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
We should all be so lucky as to pick the only person who can beat trump.
This isn't particularly directed at you but the concept of the thing is just monumentally silly.
any of the remaining viable-ish candidates could win; trying to figure out which has the best chance is impossible at this point
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
You could easily use electable- the moniker of the pundit class and viable interchangeably here since they mean the same thing.
And so what if someone expresses an opinion on who they think has the best shot and advocates voting that line? That's probably a solid chunk of primary voters in general with a majority giving their preferred candidate that status by virtue of the fact that their candidate is automatically the most likely win somehow.
Like if I thought Warren was as likely to win as I thought Beto was, I would be stupid to go around advocating for her.
Do I have any special insight into who is going to win? No, of course not. Can I at least explain my rationalization? Until a mod tells me not to I suppose.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Yeah, national polls mean pretty much fuck all at this point. Getting state level individual matchups in battleground states would be the only thing even kind of useful, but there haven't been a lot of those, and even if there were, they're comparing a known and disliked guy against someone who has not been subjected to six months of negative campaigning.
You could also probably craft a model like was used in 2018, that basically assumes the states break down like they did in 2016, and then uniformly increase the popular vote margin in favor of the Democrat until enough states flip to take the election. Whatever popular vote margin that happens at, that's what you need to get to.
None of these are super predictive, though. It's all guesswork until we get to the general election.
Tl;dr: "X can't win"/"X can't lose" is bullshit conjecture at this point, because it's impossible to even build a decent model to measure that right now.
It's trying to predict how other people are gonna vote I guess
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
"Electability" is a measure of how much the people who book guests on cable news shows would like you to be president.
If that's it, then who cares? The actual people that vote will continue to show that the media doesn't know what it's talking about
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yeah it doesn't really work like that. Voters don't really decide based on policy.
Whatever they vote on, they don't trust media. Or maybe most people still do; I don't.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
the point is that no reasonable basis exists for thinking one candidate is more likely to win than another, especially when we're talking about the top tier candidates (I personally exclude such as yang and williamson from the 'viable' grouping.) We don't have anywhere near enough information to say with any specificity that Biden is more likely to win than Warren or Sanders, or that they are more likely to win than he is even if we do a fictitious 'if the election were held today' type of scenario. Aside from the general impossibility of saying that one candidate will win 7/10 times and another 6/10, there's no way for us to know how the events of the next year will help or hurt each candidate's chances.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I mean people say they don't trust media, but they're still awash in its influence.
It's telling that African Americans support Biden, then. Apparently they think "old white man" is what most of America prefers.
Yes, black people typically vote Democrat, and are mostly supporting Biden, but I think taking it beyond statistics and trying to explain why in a general sense is kinda weird and gross
They aren’t a monolith
Gendell works for the Sanders campaign
Can the federal government even do that?
Wouldn't be the first time the federal government has implemented price controls.
Should be noted in the same speech he called for significant increases in public housing expenditures.
Probably not, but frankly the interstate commerce clause has been stretched so far past the breaking point that I honestly don't really think the ostensible limits on federal power are meaningful anymore.
I can't even figure out how you'd administer it. Is rent control even state level policy? I thought it was usually municipal.
You'd need some sort of federal funding stream you could use to lean on these municipalities to force them to enact their own rent control schemes.
And that's not even touching on the problems of rent control as a policy.
Seems like a pretty big no.
They could probably try to influence with funding the way they do with speed limits and all, but a “the rent is too damn high” bill doesn’t seem viable.
Yes. Multiple states have or have had price controls.
Price controls on what?
However, rent control is a bad policy, so despite being a Sanders fan generally I hate this.
Oil, energy, etc. Price controls on what don't really matter to the point of authority. If a state can place price controls it can place price controls.
So much this.
When the African American community ask questions (or rather, anyone), only Sanders and Warren produce answers.
States can do whatever isn't unconstitutional. The Federal grant of power isn't that broad, in theory. Relics from back when we were supposed to be 13 independant governments that sorta worked together instead of our current set up.
Random thought: Landlording partially works because you can write off expenses on your federal taxes right? So if you go out of the rent control scheme you can no longer do that. I'd think that'd be enough in most places but probably not in the NYC like places.
Not a huge fan of the general idea though. Rent Control has a huge amount of issues in implementation, though I understand the motivation.