|
SedanChair posted:He said play jazz, not haltingly make your way through the head of a few popular tunes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alv7N6Ynm1Y This is a man on the stage with every drat jazz musician worth a drat ever. And they made him play. He did all right.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 04:20 |
|
|
So, Jessie Jackson's other son is back in town. Wonder if someone has their eyes on a Senate seat, or is willing to settle for Congress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
A Cassidy internal poll (the most reliable kind) has Landrieu down 56-40 in the runoff. Cassidy has been promised a seat on the Energy committee if he wins and Landrieu is trying to push through a bill with her name on it to approve the Keystone pipeline in the lame duck session.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
Landrieu would be the ranking member on the Energy commitee should she win (she won't). The two of them are basically indistinguishable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
CubsWoo posted:A Cassidy internal poll (the most reliable kind) has Landrieu down 56-40 in the runoff. Cassidy has been promised a seat on the Energy committee if he wins and Landrieu is trying to push through a bill with her name on it to approve the Keystone pipeline in the lame duck session. The democrats are also pretty much openly saying Landrieu has no viable path to victory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Tammy Duckworth (and her people) are starting to feel out a run against Mark Kirk in 2016. Also a nice little mention of Durbin's future at the end.quote:Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., is interested in a 2016 Senate run against Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., but for now is focused on the impending birth of her daughter, who is due any day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 06:50
|
|
|
She'll pass. No woman in her right mind is going to run for public office with a two year old.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 08:30
|
|
|
Ehh, lots of pols are helicopter parents, her running wouldn't surprise me. This isn't like Gabby Giffords where she physically was not capable of running due to her not-yet complete recovery, Tammy Duckworth is just a nanny away from never having to deal with the kid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Highly popular governor Jay Nixon (D-Missouri) is term limited in 2016. If he runs for Senate, he will almost certainly crush unpopular incumbent Roy Blunt (R), whose approval rating was at 37/36 (+1) in 2012. Yeah, Nixon's kinda got a massive millstone called "Ferguson" around his neck. So much so that black Dems from NoCO allied themselves around the GOP candidate for STL County Exec (who lost, but it's going to a recount so who knows) in the recent elections because at least he promised to do something about getting justice for Mike Brown, and he's already had a diss track written about him by one of the main protest leaders that takes him to task (it's available here: https://soundcloud.com/tef-poe/war-cry-produced-by-dj-smitty-jay-nixon-diss-record). So, despite the fact that Missouri has a fairly deep Dem bench (the AG and SoS are both Dems who won with popular programs like "justice for all" and "let everyone, including soldiers like myself, vote" respectively, if Nixon runs it might be an own-goal of Andres Escobar proportions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alv7N6Ynm1Y Look at that man schmooze holy poo poo it's beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Troy Queef posted:Yeah, Nixon's kinda got a massive millstone called "Ferguson" around his neck. So much so that black Dems from NoCO allied themselves around the GOP candidate for STL County Exec (who lost, but it's going to a recount so who knows) in the recent elections because at least he promised to do something about getting justice for Mike Brown, and he's already had a diss track written about him by one of the main protest leaders that takes him to task (it's available here: https://soundcloud.com/tef-poe/war-cry-produced-by-dj-smitty-jay-nixon-diss-record). Ah, yes, the well-worn double-edged sword of campaign promises that obviously violate separation of powers. In this case, a promise to prevent the massive impending failure of the judicial branch. I don't know much about Missouri state law, regarding the relationship between the governor's mansion and local law enforcement, but would a call from the governor get a killer cop fired directly or indirectly? What could and should Nixon have done, realistically?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Ah, yes, the well-worn double-edged sword of campaign promises that obviously violate separation of powers. In this case, a promise to prevent the massive impending failure of the judicial branch. Not called in the National Guard, during the state of emergency he declared pulled the STL County prosecutor and appointed a special prosecutor, barred use of teargas/milsurp vehicles, actually go to Ferguson and speak with protest leaders quicker than he did, and so forth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
You mean an elected Democrat asked himself the question "how will doing the right thing be misinterpreted by racist morons?" and bumbled and missed the opportunity?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Antti posted:I'm sad John Quincy Adamsing it up didn't become a trend. Nowadays the speaking circuit is too much money to resist. Clinton could have done it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
sugar free jazz posted:Look at that man schmooze holy poo poo it's beautiful. 4 more years!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 03:22
|
|
|
Imagine if Clinton had FDR'd and been reelected President for the rest of his life. The country would be in a much better place, and would have stopped caring after the ninth or tenth intern he had sexual relations with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Imagine if Clinton had FDR'd and been reelected President for the rest of his life. The country would be in a much better place, and would have stopped caring after the ninth or tenth intern he had sexual relations with. People didn't even care the first time, Clinton's approval rating peaked during the Lewinsky scandal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:People didn't even care the first time, Clinton's approval rating peaked during the Lewinsky scandal. At the peak of the tech bubble he could have come out as a Satanist and not taken a hit to his approval.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Imagine if Clinton had FDR'd and been reelected President for the rest of his life. The country would be in a much better place, and would have stopped caring after the ninth or tenth intern he had sexual relations with. 2008 still would have happened and we'd either be in McCain's 2nd term or Obama's first. Maybe Iraq doesn't happen, but I'm not sure what other history-changing events would have been prevented. If we got health care reform, it probably ends up looking the same. Or it doesn't happen at all if Clinton never wins back the house there's a GOP president. Then again, maybe the GOP doesn't move so far right and wins with the 2000 McCain rather than 2008's version?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Beyond Iraq, I don't know what would be that different (I guess you could say Syria was influenced by Iraq, but it very well most likely would have happened). Clinton's attitudes toward financial regulation was pretty much the same as the GOP anyway. Yeah and we would have ended up with Gay marriage and some version of the ACA anyway. We would still also be fighting brush fires in the Middle East, and relations with Russia would have still been frigid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:2008 still would have happened and we'd either be in McCain's 2nd term or Obama's first. Maybe Iraq doesn't happen, but I'm not sure what other history-changing events would have been prevented. If we got health care reform, it probably ends up looking the same. Or it doesn't happen at all if Clinton never wins back the house there's a GOP president. Then again, maybe the GOP doesn't move so far right and wins with the 2000 McCain rather than 2008's version? 2008 might not have happen. Would Clinton in his third or fourth term allowed all the crazy poo poo bush did that lead to the crash?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:2008 might not have happen. Would Clinton in his third or fourth term allowed all the crazy poo poo bush did that lead to the crash? You really should read up more about financial regulation under Clinton, especially the CFMA and the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:2008 still would have happened and we'd either be in McCain's 2nd term or Obama's first. Maybe Iraq doesn't happen, but I'm not sure what other history-changing events would have been prevented. If we got health care reform, it probably ends up looking the same. Or it doesn't happen at all if Clinton never wins back the house there's a GOP president. Then again, maybe the GOP doesn't move so far right and wins with the 2000 McCain rather than 2008's version? Alito and Roberts would have been Democratic appointments instead. That's a lot of change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Beyond Iraq, I don't know what would be that different (I guess you could say Syria was influenced by Iraq, but it very well most likely would have happened). Clinton's attitudes toward financial regulation was pretty much the same as the GOP anyway. Would Clinton have been completely asleep at the wheel though as the housing bubble built up, with no effort to do anything? Would he have let AT&T reform (and other mergers)? Clinton at least had some semblance of anti-trust going. There's also FCC decisions. We certainly wouldn't have ended up with a massive deficit and debt buildup, since Republicans are always about the balanced budget when they aren't in the white house. There's also the whole Rehnquist thing - Clinton being able to swing SCOTUS would have been huge and kept the CRA alive among other things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Pervis posted:Would he have let AT&T reform (and other mergers)? This hasn't happened, you realize that right? When you're making hypotheticals it's best not to predicate them on a things that haven't happened in our reality. Pervis posted:There's also FCC decisions. Communications regulations in the Bush II and Obama administrations have been following the same lines as Clinton administration regulations did. Nintendo Kid has issued a correction as of 20:15 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Pervis posted:Would Clinton have been completely asleep at the wheel though as the housing bubble built up, with no effort to do anything? Would he have let AT&T reform (and other mergers)? Clinton at least had some semblance of anti-trust going. There's also FCC decisions. I doubt Clinton would have done much to stop them especially as he got use to being in office, and Clinton regulation of the FCC wasn't that different. You know Clinton got a balanced budget from constrained spending right? We would have a lower debt level...and thats about it. If anything I wouldn't have been surprised if Clinton ultimately would have cut more than Bush did over the years. (The US debt level even right now isn't an issue) The Supreme Court is pretty much the last defense of any Democratic president, yeah he would have but beyond Iraq that might have been the most major difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:2008 still would have happened and we'd either be in McCain's 2nd term or Obama's first. Maybe Iraq doesn't happen, but I'm not sure what other history-changing events would have been prevented. If we got health care reform, it probably ends up looking the same. Or it doesn't happen at all if Clinton never wins back the house there's a GOP president. Then again, maybe the GOP doesn't move so far right and wins with the 2000 McCain rather than 2008's version? I honestly believe 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Bush received "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US" and thought it was routine; Clinton would have had the hindsight to know it was not. Even if 9/11 had occurred under a Democrat, there would have been no Iraq War and no Bush tax cuts, so by the time the housing and financial bubbles popped, there wouldn't have been a deficit and the national debt would have been much lower. The Recession would have been much easier to fix with a budget surplus going into it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Even if 9/11 had occurred under a Democrat, there would have been no Iraq War and no Bush tax cuts, so by the time the housing and financial bubbles popped, there wouldn't have been a deficit and the national debt would have been much lower. The Recession would have been much easier to fix with a budget surplus going into it. In any real sense budget deficit wasn't the primary factor holding back stimulus though and who knows what the optics would have looked like after a 16 year Clinton presidency that ended into a second recession.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Alito and Roberts would have been Democratic appointments instead. That's a lot of change. Maybe O'Connor stays on, but the replacement for Rehnquist is a big deal. Forgot about that. There's no proof that the Clinton regulatory regimen would have been any different. His record tells me it would have been pretty similar. 9/11 might have been different, but aside from that summer 2001 notice maybe being treated differently, I doubt terrorist cells would have behaved differently. This was in the works long before 2001.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:This hasn't happened, you realize that right? When you're making hypotheticals it's best not to predicate them on a things that haven't happened in our reality. Sorry, SBC buying up most of the other baby bells and the remnants of AT&T, as well as other mergers back in to a handful of companies. It's not a hypothetical that it largely hosed up the telco world and anyone who does business with them (suppliers, companies engaging in telco services) as it greatly reduced whatever competition was there previously. End-user services may not have been visibly hosed up, but it's a world of difference attempting to sell services or equipment to a variety of variably-sized companies and then suddenly only have 2 or 3 that have 90%+ of the market, all very large. I'm not sure if the Clinton FCC would have eventually let key portions of the Telecommunications act of 1996 get effectively overturned leading to a fairly large reduction in CLEC options, but I highly doubt that he would've suddenly up and decided that warrant-less wiretapping was OK, either. Ardennes posted:I doubt Clinton would have done much to stop them especially as he got use to being in office, and Clinton regulation of the FCC wasn't that different. I know why he had the balanced budget, but there's something to be said about not dumping 500B/year in to interest payments in the middle of a near-depression while having the "responsible party" bitch about the debt, and have that actually have traction. I don't particularly care about the debt itself, but it's ridiculous that as a country we were fine with spending like drunken sailors during relatively OK years and suddenly now have to balance the budget because of some debt figure. The debt itself is a lever to kill off actual useful policy like food stamps, unemployment, R&D, etc, to a degree that seems appalling. The other notable difference AFAIK was the faith-based initiatives and general use of graduates from some of the crazier religious colleges.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Pervis posted:Sorry, SBC buying up most of the other baby bells and the remnants of AT&T, as well as other mergers back in to a handful of companies. It's not a hypothetical that it largely hosed up the telco world and anyone who does business with them (suppliers, companies engaging in telco services) as it greatly reduced whatever competition was there previously. End-user services may not have been visibly hosed up, but it's a world of difference attempting to sell services or equipment to a variety of variably-sized companies and then suddenly only have 2 or 3 that have 90%+ of the market, all very large. After the breakup there were 7 Baby Bells. Today there are 4 big time landline providers (AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, Frontier) and 4 major mobile providers (Verizon Wireless, AT&T Wireless, Sprint (non baby bell), T-Mobile (very not baby bell)). Effectively, we have 6 indpendent major phone companies as compared to the initial 7. You know dude we started with a handful of companies to begin with, and we have a handful now, and further we have significant portions of the actual telephone market owned by companies almost entirely derived from non-former-Baby-Bell parents. None of these companies hold more than about 40% share in landlines (it's probably less, since both Verizon and AT&T have sold off assloads of areas and lines to Frontier and others for being low-profit), and none of these companies holds more than 35% of mobile share. Hell just recently Verizon sold nearly all of its landline business in West Virginia to Frontier! And in 2013, both AT&T and Verizon high ups were quoted as saying they wanted to remove the copper landline business from themselves by about 2025, all by moving people over to fiber and fiber-lite services like FIOS and U-Verse, or simply selling off true copper landline areas to other companies. Furthermore, the Baby Bells never competed in a meaningful way as their own selves. You didn't have much of an option to get NYNEX service in Pennslyvania, or BellSouth service in Illinois, or USWest service in Texas. Let's be frank: the AT&T breakup was all a big scam as far as "competition" goes. It was Reagan era "competition" where seven companies got to be near absolute monopolies on a regional basis while also being free to sell off unprofitable areas and lines to suckers who'd pay for them. A facade of competition that masked ongoing corporate profits and ability to gently caress over consumers. No parts of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 have been effectively overturned, at least not when you consider Clinton-era precedent. Also, Clinton's NSA et al were undoubtedly wiretapping phones and monitoring the internet, we know they were from various Snowden leaks as well as prior existing information!
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Pervis posted:I know why he had the balanced budget, but there's something to be said about not dumping 500B/year in to interest payments in the middle of a near-depression while having the "responsible party" bitch about the debt, and have that actually have traction. I don't particularly care about the debt itself, but it's ridiculous that as a country we were fine with spending like drunken sailors during relatively OK years and suddenly now have to balance the budget because of some debt figure. The debt itself is a lever to kill off actual useful policy like food stamps, unemployment, R&D, etc, to a degree that seems appalling. That is the issue though, I never bought that Clinton was constrained by the GOP, rather he was doing what he wanted for the most part. Remember back at the 2012 when Clinton gave that speech at the convention about how much he was still proud about gutting welfare? Even if the GOP were to blame, I doubt they would change their mind with a stable budget. Our budget right now is rapidly stabilizing and the rhetoric really hasn't fundamentally shifted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That is the issue though, I never bought that Clinton was constrained by the GOP, rather he was doing what he wanted for the most part. Remember back at the 2012 when Clinton gave that speech at the convention about how much he was still proud about gutting welfare? Clinton had exactly one big issue where he was constrained by Republicans and half of his own party, and that was gay rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:After the breakup there were 7 Baby Bells. Today there are 4 big time landline providers (AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink, Frontier) and 4 major mobile providers (Verizon Wireless, AT&T Wireless, Sprint (non baby bell), T-Mobile (very not baby bell)). Effectively, we have 6 indpendent major phone companies as compared to the initial 7. You know dude we started with a handful of companies to begin with, and we have a handful now, and further we have significant portions of the actual telephone market owned by companies almost entirely derived from non-former-Baby-Bell parents. None of these companies hold more than about 40% share in landlines (it's probably less, since both Verizon and AT&T have sold off assloads of areas and lines to Frontier and others for being low-profit), and none of these companies holds more than 35% of mobile share. Hell just recently Verizon sold nearly all of its landline business in West Virginia to Frontier! And in 2013, both AT&T and Verizon high ups were quoted as saying they wanted to remove the copper landline business from themselves by about 2025, all by moving people over to fiber and fiber-lite services like FIOS and U-Verse, or simply selling off true copper landline areas to other companies. They didn't compete on the consumer side directly, but they did to an extent on the supplier/business side. Old landline/copper is fairly low profit margin, highly regulated, and has high capital expenditures, so yeah they're moving off of it and focusing on their markets that have higher margins and less regulation. Oddly enough I actually had good experience from Frontier, who bought up my local rural telco monopoly (one of those cheap areas cast off from pacbell). Graphic wise, I'm thinking of this: http://subjunctive.net/klog/2008/12/graphical_history_of/ Some of it was the telco bubble, obviously. quote:No parts of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 have been effectively overturned, at least not when you consider Clinton-era precedent. Also, Clinton's NSA et al were undoubtedly wiretapping phones and monitoring the internet, we know they were from various Snowden leaks as well as prior existing information! The CLEC leasing of ILEC equipment at reasonable costs in particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_local_exchange_carrier quote:In December 2004, the FCC released another set of rules which phase out, over a year, all CLEC leasing of ILEC local switching, while preserving access to most copper local loops and some interoffice facilities. The NSA was or has been always up to.. something. The Patriot Act was almost certainly taking a mix of Law Enforcement wishlists and then-current grey/black area practices and legalizing them, so yeah Clinton (and all the way back to Reagan, at a minimum) would have continued what was already there. Warrant-less wiretapping took what the NSA was doing and pushed it down to being available to other agencies, directly, rather than having some sort of sharing or "anonymous tip", and without the warrant paper trail that existing law dictated. It's never been clear exactly what the justification of the program was, or the actual intention, or why judicial oversight was such a burden. The other programs, especially the ones related to economic espionage, would have continued obviously. I'd bet we've been doing that forever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Pervis posted:They didn't compete on the consumer side directly, but they did to an extent on the supplier/business side. Old landline/copper is fairly low profit margin, highly regulated, and has high capital expenditures, so yeah they're moving off of it and focusing on their markets that have higher margins and less regulation. Oddly enough I actually had good experience from Frontier, who bought up my local rural telco monopoly (one of those cheap areas cast off from pacbell). Yes there was minimal competition for businesses, but it was again, minimal. Throughout the history since the breakup, nearly everyone stuck with their designated regional monopoly provider And what I'm telling you is that graphic essentially lies. It completely ignores all of the ongoing sell-off of quite massive amounts of lines to other companies, and tries to overstate things further by displaying just baby-bell derived end point mobile carriers while ignoring non baby bell derived end companies and Frontier's purchases of landlines in particular. It also tries to imply AT&T and AT&T wireless are way bigger than they really are (somewhere south of 40% of landlines even when the graphic was made, and also under 30% of wireless when the graphic was made). Particularly egregious is how it breaks out the subdivisions of Ameritech for no reason only to portray it as if they then were remerged. It doesn't do this with say BellAtlantic's former subsidiaries, or NYNEX's or any other ones except for three divisions of USWEST that immediately display as remerged (again, why? they weren't independent at all!). An accurate version of that graphic would have displayed everyone that wasn't built from a Baby Bell and wouldn't provide needless clutter from arbitrarily pointing out a business had 7 subsidiaries or whatever. It's crap as it is. Pervis posted:The CLEC leasing of ILEC equipment at reasonable costs in particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_local_exchange_carrier But that's under Clinton-era telecommunications guidance itself. And yeah about the only thing Bush did with that was make it slightly more public.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
De Nomolos posted:Maybe O'Connor stays on, but the replacement for Rehnquist is a big deal. Forgot about that. Even if O'Connor stays on, my understanding is that's a big deal when compared with Alito.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
I put together a little graph that shines a bit of light on the 2012 elections: There are three Senate classes, which each get elected each six years. But because every other one of these is a Presidential election, which changes turnout, senate elections basically follow a 12-year cycle. Years that Class 2 Senators get reelected in a mid-term election have the lowest turnout. (That is the election that we just saw, and that we saw previously in 2002). When Class 1 and Class 3 Senators have elections in a presidential election year, those are the years with the highest turnout. 2016 will be Class 3 in an election year, something we last saw in 2004 and 1992, and something which has had big Democratic margins. Of course, a lot of those margins are in New York and California, but I still think that the pattern means it will be a good year for Democrats. Edit: notice and gnash your teeth at how a 10,000,000 vote popular margin for Democrats in 2012 translated into a 2 seat gain, while a 1,000,000 vote popular margin for Republicans in 2014 translated into an eight seat gain. glowing-fish has issued a correction as of 22:13 on Nov 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
There's more to the impact of a president than just legislative policy changes. Even if there wouldn't be much change in legislation were Clinton to have stayed on in 2000, the extent of the 2008 crash may have been mitigated. Bush packed a lot of senior positions with vaguely qualified people mostly chosen on conservative credentials. People in an agency take direction from the top, and if the person running the show relates to people who may not even want the agency to exist there will be a difference in morale. And it wasn't just at the cabinet level where you would expect political appointees, remember the whole thing about the DOJ pushing out lawyers based on politics? Would the financial crash have been as bad if some of the outright fraud that contributed to the resulting mess was prosecuted on some level? What about more IRS or SEC enforcement? Who knows, and certainly addressing the underlying fundamental issues was never on the table, but the degree may not have been the same. On top of that, the tax cuts from early in W's first term cost a solid trillion and a half. I don't think anything Clinton would have signed anything on that scale. Those cuts were also very top-heavy, and the resulting redistribution of income up only destabilized the economy further - needing a Democratic signature on the bill would have resulted in something that looked very different. Having that additional borrowing capacity going into the financial crash would have allowed for a stronger stimulus and less austerity. Just because the broad strokes are more or less the same doesn't make the two parties equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:I put together a little graph that shines a bit of light on the 2012 elections: How much of the turnout difference between Class 1/3 and Class 2 comes from NY and CA? Is there a significant difference in turnout as a fraction of population?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 09:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 04:20 |
|
|
James Garfield posted:How much of the turnout difference between Class 1/3 and Class 2 comes from NY and CA? Is there a significant difference in turnout as a fraction of population? Just checking for the most recent year where California and New York voted, they were together responsible for 6 million of the 11 million Democratic popular vote margin. But in 2012, Florida had a million vote margin for the Democratic candidate. Pennsylvania had a half million vote margin, Ohio had 350,000 and Wisconsin had a little bit below 200,000. In 2008, the which was the last year that Illinois had a senatorial race during a presidential election year, Dick Durbin won by a 2 million vote margin in Illinois. Of course, people don't always vote by party, candidate quality and incumbency still do matter. But in the last presidential election year in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire and Wisconsin,the Democratic senatorial candidates performed the same way that the president did there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 19:17
|
|