|
Let's see how Trump's win probability is shaping up today... Oh.
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
Geostomp posted:If you want to get anything done these days, you absolutely have to remove the Republican's ability to temper tantrum about it to show off. Otherwise we get a repeat of Ted Cruz misunderstanding Dr. Seuss whenever we want to pass a traffic law. Yeah, I don't like it because even if we win the Senate in 16, we'll lose it again in 18.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
how is this news theyve been sayin theyd do this all year if they win the senate back
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah, I don't like it because even if we win the Senate in 16, we'll lose it again in 18. But we'll have veto power, so  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
zoux posted:Oh no one is ignoring poo poo, the vast majority of news today is about Trump, Mexico and immigration. I'm glad to be wrong then.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Basically the prices were always really expensive, but they were hidden behind insurance for the most part. Pharmaceuticals price-gouged because they could, hospitals and doctors price-gouged to get the insurance companies to pay up. Which meant that insurance companies price-gouged and offered incredibly lovely coverage to a certain section of customers to pay for the gouging while also doing their level best to outright deny service to anyone who looked like they'd be too expensive to cover. Stealing this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:Keep arzying cause they're going down too: Nate screwed up on Trump in the primaries and is over-compensating. "What if we extrapolate a small change INTO INFINITY?!?! WHAT THEN I ASK YOU?!?! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
zoux posted:Nate needs clicks! I think Nate's model also goes really heavily into 'trend lines' for their Polls Plus thing, so he's screaming about the PTA disbanding and flinging himself out a window if there's an appearance of large movement in any one direction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah, I don't like it because even if we win the Senate in 16, we'll lose it again in 18. If the Republicans didn't get rid of it in '18 anyway I'd be somewhat surprised.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
SpaceX destroyed a $200M satellite
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Gyges posted:If the Republicans didn't get rid of it in '18 anyway I'd be somewhat surprised. It's a bad idea but I guess I still believe in a government that can compromise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Nate screwed up on Trump in the primaries and is over-compensating. you still don't understand how polls work, don't make the thread explain this to you again
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its worse than that, in an effort to maximize profits, you now have insurance groups establishing Health Clinics to cut out the middle man. This has been a thing for a long time, see: Kaiser Permanente. It can actually be good because it removes some of the incentives for doctors to over-order. Radish posted:I don't think the New York Times could be telegraphing their debate coverage stronger. Apparently they believe the standard for a presidential candidate is less than a retail employee if not using an ethnic slur and being able to read off a card is good enough. What an embarrassment. Media coverage of the race has been terrible lately. They're totally desperate for there to be a horse-race and they're actively trying to foment poo poo. Like how the AP did blatantly false reporting on the Clinton Foundation this past week. I was listening to Here and Now on NPR and they had a segment where the host was tossing a Republican strategist softballs about the "legitimate questions" on the Clinton Foundation, and asking whether they should shut it down after the election or just shut it down right now. And they're still trying desperately to keep the email server story alive, asking why news about this story "just won't end" as they endlessly beat the dead horse on their nationally-syndicated radio program. Fortunately it doesn't seem to be having tremendous effect, the first caller on an episode of the Diane Rehm show put it best - "this story is ancient and there's nothing there, you guys are just trying to make mountains out of a molehill".
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:SpaceX destroyed a $200M satellite
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Fortunately it doesn't seem to be having tremendous effect, the first caller on an episode of the Diane Rehm show put it best - "this story is ancient and there's nothing there, you guys are just trying to make mountains out of a molehill". Bad news: I was the caller.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:SpaceX destroyed a $200M satellite A $200M Israeli satellite. mrbradlymrmartin posted:were they launching it or did they hit somebody elses toy The rocket failed a prelaunch test, badly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:This has been a thing for a long time, see: Kaiser Permanente. It can actually be good because it removes some of the incentives for doctors to over-order. No. Its not a good thing. At all. Its bad enough half these companies are irked they actually have to provide coverage for care, I don't want them running offices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
I kinda liked Nate's line that, in 2012 people had trouble believing Romney only had a 25% chance to win, where as in 2016 people are having trouble believing Trump's chances are as high as 25%. It worries me that Hillary never seems to be above 50% in national or swing state polls, and no one can really go after the third parties without giving them a ton of spot light and likely attracting more voters. I'm not arzying, I think Clinton will pull this out in a 2008 style landslide, but man this election cycle has not been good for the heart.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Also isn't Nate's stuff thrown off a lot by the utter madness of King Reuters?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Also isn't Nate's stuff thrown off a lot by the utter madness of King Reuters? As I recall, he weights those pretty low. What's the problem, you don't believe Clinton is up three in Nebraska?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
Nor down 14 in NH. It's me, I'm the unskewer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:This has been a thing for a long time, see: Kaiser Permanente. It can actually be good because it removes some of the incentives for doctors to over-order. I'd like to think the media is really damaging their credibility with all this. Republicans already believe that the media is leftwing and untrustworthy; I can't think that this blatant double standard that some journalists are showing where Trump is being treated like a child and gets a gold star for eating his food without choking is helping them with democrats that are in serious Clinton "scandal" fatigue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
Captain Stalin posted:I kinda liked Nate's line that, in 2012 people had trouble believing Romney only had a 25% chance to win, where as in 2016 people are having trouble believing Trump's chances are as high as 25%. It doesn't matter how much Trump runs up the score in Texas or other safe states. Frankly he's not even doing that, he's putting what are normally safe Republican states into play, but that's where the popular vote is coming from. In terms of battleground states, Trump's only legitimate path to victory is to either absolutely run the table on all the battleground states, or to put some safe Democratic states into play, neither of which is going to happen. Trump's only realistic path to victory is for Putin to hack some voting machines for him, for certain definitions of "realistic".
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Those dastardly Clintons spending money on helping kids with AIDS. When will the corruption end?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah, I don't like it because even if we win the Senate in 16, we'll lose it again in 18. Also true. The Republican temper tantrum is having their desired effect of ensuring that they can continue to screw everything up later on since we cannot ever expect them to be reasonable unless they somehow man up and grow some principles.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'd like to think the media is really damaging their credibility with all this. Republicans already believe that the media is leftwing and untrustworthy; I can't think that this blatant double standard that some journalists are showing where Trump is being treated like a child and gets a gold star for eating his food without choking is helping them with democrats that are in serious Clinton "scandal" fatigue. Again a big part of this is because Clinton is not giving them any ammo to shore up the horse race narrative. Like a ton of people ate total poo poo last night when they were crowing about how Trump was "VERY PRESIDENTIAL" then he immediately went full Hitler. Hillary Clinton is the Luigi of democracy's Mario Party.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
nvm
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
It would be really cool if every time Nate Silver says something we don't like we don't start going "UNSKEWED POLLS" and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:Also true. The Republican temper tantrum is having their desired effect of ensuring that they can continue to screw everything up later on since we cannot ever expect them to be reasonable unless they somehow man up and grow some principles. Honest question, why does losing the Senate matter if Hillary can veto anything lovely that they pass? The lack of a filibuster wouldn't change anything in that regard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'd like to think the media is really damaging their credibility with all this. Republicans already believe that the media is leftwing and untrustworthy; I can't think that this blatant double standard that some journalists are showing where Trump is being treated like a child and gets a gold star for eating his food without choking is helping them with democrats that are in serious Clinton "scandal" fatigue. It is among the younger viewers who are abandoning traditional sources in droves, but old viewers are usually too stubborn to change and remain, which encourages them to keep on pandering to said viewers and trying to appear "fair" by justifying every reprehensible thing the Republicans have been doing for decades even though the demographic is dying off. WampaLord posted:Honest question, why does losing the Senate matter if Hillary can veto anything lovely that they pass? It does when we have to get anything not-terrible done. They'll block her even more than they did Obama since they saw how well that worked.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Honest question, why does losing the Senate matter if Hillary can veto anything lovely that they pass? Much easier to get legislation we want passed
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Honest question, why does losing the Senate matter if Hillary can veto anything lovely that they pass? Appointments, and the ability to put pressure on the House to avoid total governmental paralysis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:Again a big part of this is because Clinton is not giving them any ammo to shore up the horse race narrative. Like a ton of people ate total poo poo last night when they were crowing about how Trump was "VERY PRESIDENTIAL" then he immediately went full Hitler. Yeah it's really clear Hillary knows the score and that there's little point to holding a press conference so she can be asked dumbass questions about emails and Benghazi and then afterwards they will still complain she isn't holding enough conferences. I don't think being standoffish with the press is great but it's not like she really gains anything from working with them either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
No, I know the GOOD parts of killing the filibuster, I mean why are people freaking out over it being gone if we lost the Senate in 2018?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No, I know the GOOD parts of killing the filibuster, I mean why are people freaking out over it being gone if we lost the Senate in 2018? Because what if we lose the presidency in 2020. https://twitter.com/AU4Change/status/771363035973844992 Christie vetoed a $15 min wage increase on Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Honest question, why does losing the Senate matter if Hillary can veto anything lovely that they pass?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
I'm guessing if the Republicans control the presidency and the senate the filibuster will be destroyed immediately anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
zoux posted:Because what if we lose the presidency in 2020. To who/what? I'm looking all around this Republican Party, and Larry Bird ain't walking through that door, Kevin McHale ain't walking through that door… Edit: hell yeah, triple Yodatar combo
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
zoux posted:Because what if we lose the presidency in 2020. To quote myself from the politoon thread: WampaLord posted:Name a candidate that could:
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 21:45 |
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah, I don't like it because even if we win the Senate in 16, we'll lose it again in 18. The fact that the Senate is on 6-year terms is one of my least favorite features of the American political system (which is saying something). In a system where one party dominates on-year elections and one dominates off-year elections, you get an endless amount of churn that amounts to throwing out politicians because they were elected in 2012 instead of 2014. I would love to see Senate terms reduced to 4 years, with every state having a senator elected every 2 years. It's obviously not going to happen, but... The uncritical media coverage of "the results of this election where no Republican seats were ever in play proves that the country has repudiated this President's agenda" every off year cycle doesn't help either, of course. It's still a chance to pack the SCOTUS with at least 2 liberal justices though, so I'll take a 2-year majority. Maybe in 2020 we will have some serious judicial review on redistricting. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Sep 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2016 16:08
|
|