Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-15-2018 10:38 PM
268 online now:
DrJones*, Meddle (2 members, 266 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,321 Year: 15,144/29,783 Month: 1,088/1,502 Week: 86/492 Day: 49/37 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   Important upcoming elections
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1247
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 31 of 39 (840017)
09-22-2018 12:02 AM


Cruz really beat O'Rourke (over guns) in debate.
This will be a tough race for Democrats to win, but Democrats rarely have the advantage of having nominated a genuine progressive. It will be a good barometer, but the gun issue really hurts Democrats.

(Even before the specific gun issue was presented by the moderators, Beto already was getting his butt kicked on the issue, clearly refusing to answer Cruz' gun question, EVEN AFTER THE MODERATORS GAVE HIM MORE TIME, then when the moderators asked a specific gun related question, it got even worse for Beto. It must have seemed like 10 minutes in hell to Beto, though I suspect it was only 6-7 straight minutes of gun debate)

More bad news for Democrats in Texas.

A special election for the state Senate was just held in San Antonio. (understand that Texas state Senators actually represent more voters than U.S. Congressmen)

A Former Democratic U.S. Congressman (Pete Gallego) lost 53% to 47% to his Republican opponent.

This district is 66% Hispanic and 7% Black.

Texas is tough.

(I feel like Texas might be a more liberal place if it were its own country, like some have suggested it should be. But the national Democratic party seems to have too many "Big D" issues - like gun control - that hurt the candidates in Texas. The national party is seen as too out of touch, on many fronts (and not all of it centers around actual issues), and though Beto is a rare progressive voice for Texas voters, he is too easily painted as some tool of the national party)

There might be some good news for Democrats in Texas. John Culberson is only leading his Democratic challenger 48% to 45%. This is the (once) heavily Republican Houston district, which George H. W. Bush held, and it was 47% Hispanic (I assume it still is about that much if not more). I started to like Culberson when he strongly opposed a war against Assad, 5 years ago, so I wonder if his Democratic opponent is a war monger.

It must be admitted:

(everything below - all the way to the end of my post - is about Nebraska)

There are times when a pro war Democrat runs against a more moderate Republican. A Democratic congressman in Omaha, Brad Ashford, supported war against Syria and opposed the Iran deal. He was defeated by Republican Don Bacon, even though Hillary almost beat Trump. Romney won the district 53% to 46% while Hillary only lost 48% to 46%. Now a 1-term Congressman, Don Bacon, is facing a progressive Democratic challenger who upset Ashford in the Democratic primary. Bacon is one of the most vulnerable GOP congressmen, as well as the strongest critic of Trump's trade policies - he has had a hand in creating pro-trade groups to battle Trump on trade, so the general election will have 2 good candidates: win-win for Americans.

Whoever wins the Omaha district this fall (the Republican Bacon or the progressive Democrat) will be a much better congressman than Brad Ashford. Ashford opposed the nuclear deal with Iran (the only area of foreign policy where Trump was more hawkish than Hillary), which even an increasingly hawkish Democratic party (Lybia, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Ukraine, Russia, etc.) almost entirely supports.

I was really sick on my stomach when Ashford was making his comeback, but he was defeated in the primary, in a major upset. I, previously,had high hopes for Ashford, as he was a fairly decent member of the Nebraska legislature. A former Republican, Ashford was a key moderate in the non-partisan legislature (when he was known as a Republican despite the party-free membership), casting the deciding vote (around) 1990 to have Nebraska split its electoral votes according to the congressional district vote. (Obama got 1 electoral vote from Nebraska in 2008, because he won the Omaha district 50%-49%, which no Democrat did since 1964, and haven't since 2008) Republicans have come extremely close to moving the state back to the standard electoral vote allocation.

A few moderate Republicans have refused to become the deciding vote (and only 1 is needed to bring a 2-1 super majority) to bring the electoral vote allocation back to the way it was pre-1992 (One said he would if the legislature would accept the Medicaid expansion, which it hasn't)

Medicaid is on the November ballot. The legislature did allow a petition drive. It was a longshot, but 84,000 required signatures (actually about 130,000) were collected. There 84,000 were registered voters, which was a high percentage to reach. The petition survived multiple Republican sponsored court challenges.

The GOP governor said the expansion would cost $800 million over 10 years, but a credible study showed that it would only cost the state (just under) $39 million in Fiscal Year 2022, while the federal government send in over $572 million to the state the same year. The first fiscal year cost to the state (FY 2020) will be $19.8 million if the voters support the initiative in November.

The federal funding will create 10,000 jobs each and every year.

A Colorado legislative study showed that the Medicaid expansion created 31,000 jobs in 2015.

It seems that Medicaid expansion can reduce workforce unemployment by a full 1.0% ?

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1247
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 32 of 39 (840374)
09-28-2018 12:59 AM


Nebraska congressional district 2 (Ohama)
Real Clear Politics has this race polls today.

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Don Bacon is up 51% to 42% in this slightly gerrymandered district (Hillary lost 48% to 46% in 2016, but probably would have won slightly had the district not been changed in 2012 redistricting).

Bacon has immigration views that are at odds with Trump.

quote:

Democratic congressional candidate Kara Eastman says she doesn’t want to abolish ICE. She has not joined a political movement that embraces the elimination of the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

She says she would rather see Congress rein in the agencies enforcing immigration law, including ICE and Customs and Border Protection, the agency that detains people crossing the border without permission.

“The policy is the problem right now,” Eastman said. The people carrying out President Donald Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy at ICE and elsewhere don’t deserve the blame for separating families, she says. Policymakers do.

On several basic principles of immigration enforcement, Eastman sounds at times like her opponent in the Omaha-area race to represent Nebraska’s 2nd District, Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican.

Both candidates emphasize that national security needs to know who is coming into the United States and why. Both say ICE performs important work, including investigations of human trafficking. Both say people who dislike how the administration is enforcing the law should work to change the law.

Both also say they want federal immigration authorities to treat people fleeing their home countries humanely. And both say they want families crossing the border together to stay together until their cases are addressed.

But listen closer, and differences on the issue poke through.

Bacon, for example, supports Trump’s expanded border wall. Eastman opposes it.

Eastman says Americans should discuss whether federal law should “criminalize” or penalize people crossing the U.S. border to seek a better life.

Bacon, who has supported comprehensive immigration overhaul bills that included accepting higher numbers of legal immigrants, says no country can afford to accept all comers, citing the strain on public services.

Bacon argues that a country without strict enforcement of the laws governing its borders isn’t much of a country at all. He voted last week against a Democratic-led measure to abolish ICE.

Many progressives in the Democratic Party have said ICE and other federal immigration enforcement agencies have been tainted by how the Trump administration uses them and therefore need to be abolished. Some expected Eastman to join them. She did not.

Clarifying the mission and scope of those federal agencies, Eastman says, should be accomplished with a combination of legislative oversight and law. Her aim: setting appropriate expectations and limits.

Eastman says she can’t stand the idea of families living in glorified prisons along the border for weeks or months while waiting for their asylum-seeking cases to be adjudicated.

“If our goal is to criminalize people coming into this country, then we need to stand firm in our laws, but be humane,” Eastman said.

She sees it as a moral imperative that immigration authorities find a viable way to monitor families crossing the border so they can be released together into the U.S. but return for immigration-related hearings.

Bacon calls that wishful thinking, citing Department of Homeland Security statistics showing that thousands of people detained and released near the border during the Obama administration never showed back up for court.

“If you release families, they never come back,” he said. “There has to be some way to hold families together.”

He supports building more facilities at the border to hold families.

Eastman says she wants Congress to act separately from other immigration negotiations to address the issue of young people in the legal limbo of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which temporarily legalized them.

Bacon, too, says DACA participants need legal certainty but says the issue should be part of compromise legislation that also addresses border security and legal immigration. The GOP must not let “perfect be the enemy of good,” he says.

Both Eastman and Bacon agree that the rhetoric on immigration enforcement has spiraled out of control. Each mentioned the recent vandalism of the state Republican Party headquarters as going too far. It should be possible to discuss these issues without demonizing your opponent, they said.

Both said people should understand the value that immigrants add to Nebraska communities: the entrepreneurial spirit, the willingness to work hard, the sense of community.

Immigration enforcement appears to be the rare issue in this race where the candidates are close in tone, if not policy, said Paul Landow, a professor of political science at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.

Bacon is tilted a little left of his party on the issue, Landow said, and Eastman’s position is more measured than some Republican caricatures of her. That leaves immigration-focused voters with a tougher decision

https://www.omaha.com/...10-617d-5f44-bcb4-7c49e7950272.html


On trade

quote:

Democratic congressional candidate Kara Eastman finds common ground with Trump on trade

By Roseann Moring / World-Herald staff writer

RMORING

Aug 6, 2018
1

https://www.omaha.com/...ec-e557-50d7-9fd7-c8478afe9b9f.html



    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1247
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 33 of 39 (841249)
10-10-2018 12:47 AM


I will make predictions 4 weeks before the election.
Democrats will loose 1 seat net in the Senate.

There are 6 highly vulnerable Democrats in 6 states:

West Virginia
Indiana
Missouri
North Dakota
Florida
Montana

I predict Democrats will hold Florida, Montana, and West Virginia.

I predict they will loose North Dakota, Indiana, and Missouri.

Republicans are vulnerable, to some degree, in these 4 states:

Nevada
Arizona
Texas
Tennessee

I predict the Republicans will loose Nevada and Arizona

I predict they hold Texas and Tennessee.

Republicans net a 1 seat gain.

In the House, I will predict that the outcome will not be known on election night.I will predict a scenario where on party has declaired winners in 214-217 seats, and another party with declared winners in 212-215 seats, with 6 undeclared.

There you have it.

That is my guess, for now.


Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Diomedes, posted 10-10-2018 12:12 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 725
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 34 of 39 (841261)
10-10-2018 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by LamarkNewAge
10-10-2018 12:47 AM


Re: I will make predictions 4 weeks before the election.
The FiveThirtyEight blog somewhat agrees with your assertions:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/...mocrats-shrinking-senate-odds

It seems that more recently, the odds of Democrats taking the Senate have fallen. We are still a month out, so this could shift again. But judging from some other polls I have read, the Kavanaugh nomination actually energized the right to some degree.

The House is another thing altogether. Although FiveThirtyEight has the odds in the Dems favor in this case:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ction-forecast/house

We shall see.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-10-2018 12:47 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 10-10-2018 12:29 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19567
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 35 of 39 (841264)
10-10-2018 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Diomedes
10-10-2018 12:12 PM


Re: I will make predictions 4 weeks before the election.
I think the dems blew it by focusing on the sexual assaults and dropping the issue of lying under oath and demeanor befitting an impartial judge.

enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Diomedes, posted 10-10-2018 12:12 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Stile, posted 10-10-2018 2:44 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3236
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 36 of 39 (841267)
10-10-2018 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
10-10-2018 12:29 PM


Re: I will make predictions 4 weeks before the election.
RAZD writes:

I think the dems blew it by focusing on the sexual assaults and dropping the issue of lying under oath and demeanor befitting an impartial judge.

Yeah.

It was a silly issue to hang their hat on.
Especially without having actual evidence for it.

Even if they did have solid evidence - I would bet that over 90% of all public workers of a similar age (females included) would have similar sexual assault issues in their own past. It *was* different in the past, and this *was* a very long time ago. People change, and people can easily change away from what this sexual assault entails.

The scale of such a sexual assault is more on the Aziz Ansari side of things than it is on the Harvey Weinstein side of things.
Anyone pushing a sexual assault that's more on the Aziz side is not helping. It ends up looking more like taking-advantage-of-the-#MeToo-movement-for-your-own-agenda instead of using #MeToo for what it's actually supposed to do - help victims.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 10-10-2018 12:29 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Diomedes, posted 10-11-2018 9:42 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 725
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 37 of 39 (841309)
10-11-2018 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Stile
10-10-2018 2:44 PM


Re: I will make predictions 4 weeks before the election.
Yeah.

It was a silly issue to hang their hat on.
Especially without having actual evidence for it.

Even if they did have solid evidence - I would bet that over 90% of all public workers of a similar age (females included) would have similar sexual assault issues in their own past. It *was* different in the past, and this *was* a very long time ago. People change, and people can easily change away from what this sexual assault entails.

The scale of such a sexual assault is more on the Aziz Ansari side of things than it is on the Harvey Weinstein side of things.
Anyone pushing a sexual assault that's more on the Aziz side is not helping. It ends up looking more like taking-advantage-of-the-#MeToo-movement-for-your-own-agenda instead of using #MeToo for what it's actually supposed to do - help victims.

The other issue is even if the Democrats opted to focus on the actual alleged lies from Kavanaugh during testimony, they would be called out as hypocrites since that is precisely the tactic that the Republicans used during the Clinton impeachment saga. Clinton was in fact impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice relating to his responses during questioning regarding the affair with Lewinski. As opposed to the actual deed itself.

And if we all recall, the Democrats basically scoffed at the notion since their assertion was it was a private matter that should not have been discussed in public. Ironically, they were somewhat 'anti-#MeToo' at that time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Stile, posted 10-10-2018 2:44 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 10-12-2018 4:39 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6513
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 38 of 39 (841389)
10-12-2018 7:00 AM


Shades of James O'Keefe!
Today's LOL moment, brought to you by The Guardian:

Republican pair apparently pose as communists to make Democratic donation

Two Republicans tried to pass themselves off as members of a non-existent Communist organization and make a donation to Democrat Tom O'Halleran's reelection campaign in order to embarrass him.

But staff figured out the ruse.

Lindsey Coleman, the finance director for the campaign, then drove to the local Republican field office to return the money. Almost immediately, the man who identified himself as Rosales appeared from a room inside the office and was identified as Oscar.

We weaken our greatness when we confuse our patriotism with tribal rivalries that have sown resentment and hatred and violence in all the corners of the globe. -- John McCain

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7572
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 39 of 39 (841423)
10-12-2018 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Diomedes
10-11-2018 9:42 AM


Re: I will make predictions 4 weeks before the election.
Diomedes writes:

The other issue is even if the Democrats opted to focus on the actual alleged lies from Kavanaugh during testimony, they would be called out as hypocrites since that is precisely the tactic that the Republicans used during the Clinton impeachment saga. Clinton was in fact impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice relating to his responses during questioning regarding the affair with Lewinski. As opposed to the actual deed itself.

And if we all recall, the Democrats basically scoffed at the notion since their assertion was it was a private matter that should not have been discussed in public. Ironically, they were somewhat 'anti-#MeToo' at that time.

Last I checked, what happened between Clinton and Lewinski was consensual. That's a bit different than sexual assault.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Diomedes, posted 10-11-2018 9:42 AM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018