The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Democratic party must become staunchly pro-coal, firmly and openly denouncing anti-coal individuals as deplorable in the party platform and in TV Ads. Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Joe Biden must also make a joint address on National Television in which they profusely apologize for being anti-coal, beg for forgiveness, and then become unmistakably pro-coal.

Wulfric, did you seriously just quote yourself in the high quality posts thread?

Yes. I truly find my own posts amazing sometimes.

So do I, but I generally don't bother to copy posts to the Well, which is why I seldom quote you.

[Badger]

The Democratic party must become staunchly pro-coal, firmly and openly denouncing anti-coal individuals as deplorable in the party platform and in TV Ads. Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Joe Biden must also make a joint address on National Television in which they profusely apologize for being anti-coal, beg for forgiveness, and then become unmistakably pro-coal.

Wulfric, did you seriously just quote yourself in the high quality posts thread?

Yes. I truly find my own posts amazing sometimes.

That is amazing wulfric. Truly amazing.

[Dr. Arch]

The Democratic party must become staunchly pro-coal, firmly and openly denouncing anti-coal individuals as deplorable in the party platform and in TV Ads. Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Joe Biden must also make a joint address on National Television in which they profusely apologize for being anti-coal, beg for forgiveness, and then become unmistakably pro-coal.

Wulfric, did you seriously just quote yourself in the high quality posts thread?

Yes. I truly find my own posts amazing sometimes.

That is amazing wulfric. Truly amazing.

[IceSpear]

Convince the entirety of the SJW wing of the Democratic Party to start their own party

Ah, the good ol' theory.
Guys, we just need to abandon all the LGBTQ community and make their lives hell again, destroy our environment, ignore sexually assaulted women, force other women to carry fetuses or die in backalley abortions and ban black people from kneeling! Then the vast swathes of white working class #poulists will flock to our banners!

Short answer--Why bother (see Hillgoose above)

Long answer--Coal power plants are going to keep closing, WV mines are going to keep declining and shut down as the coal gives out, even the met coal mines (a major one will close this week for "geologic reasons").  Fat Nixon can lie to them all day, it doesn't change reality.

Their population pyramid is totally fubar'd.  They have fewer people than they did in 1980.
They have fewer people than they did in 1950.  They have 262,000 people between the ages of 55-64 and 212,000 between the ages 10-19.  They had 30,000 births in 1980 and 18,500 last year.  They are not a magnet for and are in fact hostile to the idea of immigration.   They are a lock to have fewer people in 2050 than they do now.  They don't have a Senator who can drag stuff into the state like they once did.  They live in geographically difficult terrain where infrastructure is difficult to build and maintain.  There is no compelling reason economically to build and maintain such infrastructure.

Save for the Eastern Panhandle and Morgantown (and even Morgantown is iffy) there is no reason to expect anything different from West Virginia.  Why bother.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Great post on the meaning of "originalism":

Obviously the abuser-of-office and segregation revivalist Bork. For all his blather about supremacy of Congress in making laws, he was sure eager to (ab)use the Court to override those laws in the name of "states-rights."

I'd go even farther: Bork and Scalia introduced deep evil into our constitution with that thing they called originalism -- something that, incidentally, never previously existed in any interpretation of English common law.

Clarance Thomas was clearly to the right of Scalia and probably to Bork as well.

My objection to Bork and Scalia is that these two, Thomas being just a follower, concocted a judicial philosophy that is intrinsic nonsense.

From the historical standpoint, even when the original authors of the Constitution were still alive, during the 1820s and 30s, Supreme Court justice didn't see fit to consult any of them for their private opinions when deciding cases.

From the legalistic view, what individual -- not corporate -- civil right, long dormant within the Constitution but ignored by legislatures and previous court decisions, has ever been discovered by Thomas or Scalia? Originalists certainly weren't at the forefront of repealing obnoxious sodomy laws.

I have a third objection, that originalists review our laws in a way intrinsically foreign to the ways they were constructed. English common law is mutable, and was never meant to be interpreted as being "set-in-stone." For all the objections about jurists inventing the law through their judgments, originalists have created something far worse.

I think that Robert Bork was a much better choice than Antonin Scalia. I also think, Storebought, that you should get a better understanding of what originalism is before you set out to criticize it in the way that you do. "Deep evil" is silly hyperbole.

Bork is much better at explaining what originalism means and why it should be a guiding philosophy of judges than Scalia. The article by Posner that you link to never mentioned Bork at all, but you seem to imply that the philosophy of BOTH Bork and Scalia is “intrinsic nonsense,” when you provide the link. Posner described Scalia’s philosophy (and that of Scalia’s co-author, Bryan Garner) as “textual originalism,” based on judges looking “ ‘for meaning in the governing text, ascribe to that text the meaning it has borne from its inception, and reject  judicial speculation about both the drafters’ extra-textually derived purposes and the desirability of the fair readings’ anticipated consequences.’ This austere interpretive method leads to a heavy emphasis on dictionary meanings. … [N]ew dictionaires for new texts, old dictionaries for old ones.” That is not all consistent with Robert Bork’s philosophy of originalism. Some of it is, but not all of it.

One of the essays I’ve seen that discusses a judge’s duty when interpreting law is called “How Far Is a Judge Free In Rendering a Decision?” written by Judge Learned Hand. (There used to be a copy of that essay posted on the internet, but it seems to have been taken down.) That essay convinced me of the foolishness of interpreting law according to dictionary definitions of the words in the law, but instead judges should interpret the intent of the law-makers. There is a very good explanation and critique of Judge Hand’s philosophy of interpreting statutes, as compared to how Hand actually practiced it as a federal judge. Here.

You said that Bork and Scalia “concocted” and “created” the philosophy of originalism. No, they didn’t. The idea that judges should interpret law the way the law-makers intended has been around for a long time. Look at the career of Justice Hugo Black and seen how often he was concerned with “the original meaning” of the clauses of the Constitution that he was interpreting. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that the word “income,” as it appears in the Sixteenth Amendment, should be interpreted according to what the word “income” commonly meant to most people in the general public at the time the Sixteenth was adopted. Bork wrote, in “The Tempting of America,” that men such as James Madison and Joseph Story have endorsed the philosophy of originalism.

Which brings me to this: you say originalists advocate for the idea that today’s judges should “consult” “the original authors of the Constitution” “for their private opinions when deciding cases.” No, that’s not what Bork said. He clearly said that judges should look for the meaning according to how the general public had understood the clause being interpreted, never for the private opinions of any individuals. It’s just like what Justice Holmes had said about interpreting the Sixteenth Amendment. Bork wrote, “Though I have written of the understanding of the ratifiers of the Constitution, since they enacted it and made it law, that is actually a shorthand formulation, because what the ratifiers understood themselves to be enacting must be taken to be what the public of the time would have understood the words to mean. ... The search is not for a subjective intention. If someone found a letter from George Washington to Martha telling her that when he meant by the power to lay taxes was not what other people meant, that would not change our reading of the Constitution in the slightest. … [W]hat counts is what the public understood. Law is a public act. Secret reservations or intentions count for nothing. All that counts is how the words used in the Constitution would have been understood at the time.”

You say, “Originalists certainly weren’t at the forefront of repealing obnoxious sodomy laws.” But originalists were not supposed to be at such a forefront, because there is not and never has been any constitutional ban on obnoxious laws. Sodomy laws were held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2003, Lawrence v. Texas, as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Court’s interpretation of the Due Process Clause is not at all what that Clause was intended to mean, as Bork said dozens of times throughout his book, “The Tempting of America.” The Court’s interpretation of the Due Process Clause is known as “substantive due process.” That means that instead of reading the Clause as if it says this: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” it is read as if it says this: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due law.” Only by looking at the Clause in the latter way can you interpret it as if it prohibits obnoxious laws. As scholar John Hart Ely wrote in 1980, “[T]here is simply no avoiding the fact that the word that follows ‘due’ is ‘process.’ No evidence exists that ‘process’ meant something different a century ago from what it does now. … [W]e apparently need periodic reminding that ‘substantive due process’ is a contradiction in words, sort of like ‘green pastel redness.’ “ Supreme Court Justices who refused to read the Due Process Clause as if it has a “substantive” meaning have been Oliver Wendell Holmes and Hugo Black. Repeating myself: there is not and never has been any constitutional ban on obnoxious laws.

[IceSpear]

It is not that candidate quality doesn't matter at all, but that it is dominated in terms of importance by partisanship and national environment.

Take one of your examples:

2010 has many examples as well but the most famous was Deleware

- If candidate quality didnt matter it wouldnt have mattered that the GOP nominated Christine O Donnell over Mike Castle. Yet Castle was leading big in all the polls and as soon as the GOP nominated O Donnell , Coons led big and never let go of the lead.

If O'Donnell were running in a solidly Republican state (maybe Missouri or even Ohio), she would have won. The more important factor explaining why O'Donnell lost is not just that she was a lunatic (lots of Republicans were lunatics in 2010), but that Delaware is a very strongly Democratic state. Yes, candidate quality can help explain why she lost whereas Mark Kirk won in Illinois, but you also need to take into account the inherent partisanship of the state/district, and its elasticity and the type of race.



The biggest problem with the concept of "candidate quality" is that candidate quality is not really an inherent quality or characteristic of candidates. Rather, when a candidate does well, and particularly if they do better than expected, this is attributed to "candidate quality" post-hoc as an explanation of why they are doing well. But the actual explanation may be something else particular to local voting patterns and political trends, or whatever else. But whatever it is, it ends up getting called "candidate quality" even if it doesn't have anything particularly to do with the candidate.

Importantly, "candidate quality" is not something that remains remotely constant over time. In one year, a candidate may be judged to have very high "candidate quality," and then in the next year they may lose in a landslide. Did the candidate change so much? No. The district's partisanship and national environment changed. There were a lot of Democrats who were thought to be very "high quality candidates" in 2008, and then most of them lost in 2010.

This year, it is quite possible that candidates like David Valadao and Will Hurd will survive, be judged "high quality candidates," and then lose in 2020. Why? Not because they will do anything different in 2020, but because Hispanic turnout will be different in their districts.

Bottom line - "candidate quality" is not so much an actual thing, it is a filler phrase wherein "other factors that I can't explain at the moment" get dumped into a pile. "Candidate quality" is the residual.

[Atlas Force]

Thats right Donnelly...keep driving that RV

The RV industry is big in Indiana, and in 2008 it got burned by a combination of high interest rates, a credit crunch, and a spike in gas prices. RVs are expensive purchases often made on credit or from the sale of houses (related to the overall economy), and they devour huge amounts of motor fuels. The economic meltdown hurt the RV industry, and Obama did freakishly well in the counties on the Michigan border in 2008.

An RV is a costly, environmentally-destructive vehicle, but it is also how many Hoosiers make their living -- working to build them.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

The fact that the Supreme Court, which ideally should not be biased toward any political party, has basically become a channel for partisan activism, and ramming one’s agenda through at all costs is a better example. The fact that a justice who is so clearly biased toward a political party is rushed through merits a very negative reaction from those who will suffer from his nomination. Not to mention there are allegations against which were not thoroughly investigated and it’s very clear that he perjured himself and has temperament issues. Or that a far more moderate nominee was not given the same treatment.

While liberal reactions to the Trump administration thus far annoy many Republican posters here, I’m sure (even those who are civil and do have qualms about Trump), if you can’t honestly see the cause of said reaction, you need to try walking a mile in our shoes.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

It's a shame protesters couldn't be bothered to behave more like humans, and less like animals. Such as when one of the guys in our group was punched by a protester (she was arrested, and he plans to press charges), and another group of protesters that blocked our path to Jeff Flake's office and screaming "Traitors to women, traitors to history, traitors to humanity".

wow, FF! sad she only got one of y'all

You'd have to be a pretty scummy person to wish that people you disagree with are assaulted for simply exercising their constitutional rights. I'm not even angry that you hold those views, I feel sorry that you feel the need to act like every other edgy internet socialist to feel better about yourself. 

you have this weird trait of attempting to psychoanalyze people who disagree with you. it's not particularly charming or effective and really ought to be left to trained professionals.

if i may indulge in a bit of it in return, it's indicative of an extremely limited worldview wherein people who disagree with you must be defective in some way -- seeking validation, mentally ill, whatever other label you like to throw around ("subhuman," perhaps!). you simply cannot come to grips with the idea that someone might disagree with you, perhaps even vehemently, on any sort of legitimate grounds. personally, would recommend getting outside for a bit and talking to your neighbors for half an hour. i think it'd do you a world of good.

anyway, cath is right -- i believe that you are promoting an effort (is aiding and abetting too edgy?) to inflict mass violence of vast swaths of the american (and by extension global) public, which i view as morally abhorrent. you cloak your violence in the tools of the state and excuse it with the framework of "constitutional rights," which is fine, and typically enough to persuade most liberals that you are "in the moral right" in some sense, insert Voltaire quote here. i'm not particularly persuaded by that framing and, in the broader scheme of things, am not interested in condemning one of the victims of the violence you are promoting for attempting to hit back. after all, isn't self-defense against an unjust state what you people are all about?

(edit: deleted bc i'm trying to get off this place, not bc i don't stand by it)

[IceSpear]

An elitist Democrat to me is someone who has the luxury of referring to civil rights issues as identity politics and is privileged enough to believe that social issues should not matter just as much as economic ones. Even sometimes convincing themselves that these issues aren’t greatly related for a lot of working people, especially the ones who are brown, are women, and LGBTQ.

[IceSpear]

I think you are whistling by the graveyard. 

Could be wrong, but I think it is more a case of "this Blue Dog don't hunt no more."

I don't see a whole lot of difference here as compared to, for example, TN-04 in 2010. Which had nothing to do with Kavanaugh... And everything to do with Partisanship...

Lincoln Davis, the Dem incumbent, was a good ole boy Blue Dog who all the rural folk in middle Tenessee were very happy with... until they weren't...

Here is a funny quote from a newspaper article at the time:

http://archive.knoxnews.com/news/4th-district-house-candidates-get-dirty-television-ads-from-outside-interest-groups-heat-up-davis-d--358412541.html/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This article is from October 19... Yes, later in October than we are currently...

The final actual margin was not even remotely "somewhere in between." It was an a 57.1% - 38.6% ruralstomping. And he was a good ole boy even up to mid-October!!!

What happened? Partisanship, the same thing that is happening in TN now.

[Atlas Force]

I think others have pointed out the problems with this "poll" quite well. Instead of my usual shtick about how a polling error here, which has happened before, is more likely than NV not only being immune to the blue wave, but hosting a giant red wave, let me talk about something else...

This absurd electoral truism of "Nevada bucks the trend." It really ONLY applies to the Senate races, and it's a prime example of correlation not equaling causation. In 2010, Harry Reid's opponent was Sharron Angle, who was a complete lunatic, and Republicans should have known that someone with ties to their state as strong as Reid wasn't going to go down easily. Had he faced a stronger opponent, he might well have lost. In 2012, Dean Heller's opponent was scandal-plagued, and basically written off after polls showed her consistently down by about 5%. He still just barely eked out a win against her with just 46% of the vote. Had he faced a slightly better opponent, he almost definitely would have lost. Then there's 2016, where Nevada really did not buck the trend, unless your criteria for "bucking the trend" is based only on who wins. In a slightly Republican-leaning year, a Democratic-leaning state narrowly went Democratic. It still swung Republican, just not by enough for it to flip in a year that was only somewhat Republican-leaning.

And why on earth would Nevada buck the trend this year? Heller's not a popular incumbent like Baker, Scott, or Hogan, Nevada's not a Republican stronghold like North Dakota, and while Rosen might basically be a generic Democrat, it's not like there's anything so offensively off-putting about her as to turn off a large segment of the population.

If 2018 is a good year for Republicans, sure Heller could win. But there's really no reason to believe Heller will survive a blue wave, unless you believe the polls. And if you do, I'll direct you to IceSpear's posts or my signature.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

No. Let's not f*** around and pretend that being a Supreme Court Justice is about anything more than imposing your political agenda on the nation. This is true of Justices on any side of the political spectrum. "Judicial activism" is unavoidable.

Given the behavior of the Supreme Court for the last several decades, that's true, but it does not inevitably have to be that way. We have had a few Supreme Court Justices who were dedicated to doing their job objectively and did not allow their political ideology to infiltrate their decisions. I'm referring to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo, and Hugo Black. On the Circuit Court of Appeals there was Learned Hand. I think it is possible to get people like that appointed to the Supreme Court these days, if we want and expect the POTUS to select people like that.

Love it.

This. We won. Trumps hate after all .

I mean, at the end of the day, you guys are the ones who have to live with yourselves.  Unless you guys genuinely believe that all of the allegations against Kavanaugh were unquestionably a vast left-wing conspiracy, this sort of blasé attitude about the matter is not just morally revolting, but inching towards an outright evil worldview where you don't care about rape, sexual assault, etc as much as you do about being able to do a Nelson Muntz-style "HaHa" for a month (at most).  I mean, there's none of the nuance or genuinely thoughtful commentary that we've seen from folks like Fuzzy, your posts are just you guys reveling in your own amorality.  Not gonna lie, I really thought both you guys were better than that, but I guess not

I don't think it's a "conspiracy" but I definitely think all of these accusations were completely made up in order to prevent Kavanaugh from being appointed, and used by Democrats in order to potentially block his nomination and perhaps make sure Republicans could appoint one fewer SCOTUS justice.

Yes, because making up all those accusations is so much more believable than, you know, him actually doing what they accused him of.

As long as there is no evidence - yes.

What about the therapy notes from 2012, the contrast between Kavanaugh and Ford’s sworn testimony, Kavanaugh’s perjury about his drinking, Kavanaugh’s perjury about when he learned of Ramirez’s allegations, the polygraph test, and the fact that there are witnesses supporting Ramirez’s allegations?  You don’t consider any of that evidence?  You don’t think it’s even possible that maybe...just maybe there might be some truth to Ramirez and/or Ford’s allegations?  Side note: This idea that sworn testimony isn’t evidence needs to die.  Victim testimony is good enough to be treated as evidence in criminal court

I've said this a number of times about Kavanaugh:  There IS evidence.  

There is NOT enough evidence to convict Kavanaugh at trial.  (Beyond a Reasonable Doubt)

There is NOT enough evidence to charge Kavanaugh with a crime.  (Probable Cause)

There MAY be "reasonable suspicion" to believe that Kavanaugh committed a crime in the past, and a serious crime.  It is not likely that there will ever be more than that.

Still, would you really want to elevate to the Supreme Court a man who, as a 17 year old, can be reasonably suspected of putting his hand over the mouth of a female victim who was physically helpless while he tried to take her clothes off?  That's a good question.  Would you want such a person to be YOUR attorney?  Would you want such a person to be your PSYCHOTHERAPIST?  Would you want such a person to be YOUR DAUGHTER'S HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER?  I certainly believe that, absent politics, they would not be comfortable if their attorney, their psychotherapist, or their child's teacher suddenly had such an accusation as the one that has come out about Kavanaugh surface about one of those people.  

Kavanaugh doesn't meet the "Above Suspicion" standard.  That's a mighty high standard, but the SCOTUS is a mighty high place.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Post of the month.

I honestly can't believe people buy the Ford accusations. It was the biggest gaslighting effort in ages and completely insincere, only aimed at partisan goals: slowing down the process in order to make sure Democrats win back the Senate before Kavanaugh could be confirmed. Casting doubt and creating smokescreens for no real reason other than pure partisanship. And it is Democrats who should be ashamed of this, not Republicans. Just like Republicans should be ashamed of not organizing hearings for Merrick Garland.

No, I don't view a testimony as "evidence" in itself, polygraphs are not very reliable, there are holes in Ford's testimony, I don't think Kavanaugh liking beer is a problem, I also don't think Kavanaugh downplaying him liking beer during what is essentially a job interview is a problem, and obviously one can find enough people seconding your story once a SCOTUS nominee of a party disliked in your social circles can be taken down.

I don't know anything about the accusations by people other than Ford, and am not particularly interested in learning more about them. They should have gone to court before if they had a problem with him. End of the story.

[Badger]

It's a shame protesters couldn't be bothered to behave more like humans, and less like animals. Such as when one of the guys in our group was punched by a protester (she was arrested, and he plans to press charges), and another group of protesters that blocked our path to Jeff Flake's office and screaming "Traitors to women, traitors to history, traitors to humanity".

wow, FF! sad she only got one of y'all

You'd have to be a pretty scummy person to wish that people you disagree with are assaulted for simply exercising their constitutional rights. I'm not even angry that you hold those views, I feel sorry that you feel the need to act like every other edgy internet socialist to feel better about yourself. 

you have this weird trait of attempting to psychoanalyze people who disagree with you. it's not particularly charming or effective and really ought to be left to trained professionals.

if i may indulge in a bit of it in return, it's indicative of an extremely limited worldview wherein people who disagree with you must be defective in some way -- seeking validation, mentally ill, whatever other label you like to throw around ("subhuman," perhaps!). you simply cannot come to grips with the idea that someone might disagree with you, perhaps even vehemently, on any sort of legitimate grounds. personally, would recommend getting outside for a bit and talking to your neighbors for half an hour. i think it'd do you a world of good.

anyway, cath is right -- i believe that you are promoting an effort (is aiding and abetting too edgy?) to inflict mass violence of vast swaths of the american (and by extension global) public, which i view as morally abhorrent. you cloak your violence in the tools of the state and excuse it with the framework of "constitutional rights," which is fine, and typically enough to persuade most liberals that you are "in the moral right" in some sense, insert Voltaire quote here. i'm not particularly persuaded by that framing and, in the broader scheme of things, am not interested in condemning one of the victims of the violence you are promoting for attempting to hit back. after all, isn't self-defense against an unjust state what you people are all about?

(edit: deleted bc i'm trying to get off this place, not bc i don't stand by it)

Damn, what a post.

[Badger]

Post of the month.

I honestly can't believe people buy the Ford accusations. It was the biggest gaslighting effort in ages and completely insincere, only aimed at partisan goals: slowing down the process in order to make sure Democrats win back the Senate before Kavanaugh could be confirmed. Casting doubt and creating smokescreens for no real reason other than pure partisanship. And it is Democrats who should be ashamed of this, not Republicans. Just like Republicans should be ashamed of not organizing hearings for Merrick Garland.

No, I don't view a testimony as "evidence" in itself, polygraphs are not very reliable, there are holes in Ford's testimony, I don't think Kavanaugh liking beer is a problem, I also don't think Kavanaugh downplaying him liking beer during what is essentially a job interview is a problem, and obviously one can find enough people seconding your story once a SCOTUS nominee of a party disliked in your social circles can be taken down.

I don't know anything about the accusations by people other than Ford, and am not particularly interested in learning more about them. They should have gone to court before if they had a problem with him. End of the story.

In the abhorrent crappy posts by people utterly lacking a clue contest, yes it's a hands-down winner.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I was reading a thread recently where someone remarked that the party in power is usually underestimated in the generic ballot. I looked into whether this was true and I have posted the data below from 2002-2016.

I found that if "party in power" is defined as the presidential party, the presidential party was underestimated on average by 0.8% over the eight congressional elections in this time frame. But in three of those eight elections, the presidential party was actually overestimated, so I would be hesitant to call it a rule.

The correlation is slightly stronger if we count only the four midterm elections. In that case, the presidential party was underestimated on average by 1.5%. The one exception was 2014, when the Democrats actually did 3.3% worse than RCP's average.

Interestingly, the strongest pattern occurred when "party in power" is defined not as the presidential party, but rather as the party that controls the House. Between 2002-2016, the GCB underestimated the party that controlled the House at the time of the election by an average of 2.1%. The only exception was 2012, meaning that this "rule" has held true in 7 of the 8 last congressional elections, or 88% of the time. Furthermore, it held true in all four midterm elections during that time frame.

Overall, the trend seems to be that polls typically exaggerate the size of "wave elections." Right now, Republicans control the White House. And perhaps more importantly for congressional elections, they control the House of Representatives, which historically makes them a clear favorite to overperform the polls.

Democrats lead the generic ballot by 7.6% right now. So if we apply the historical average of the incumbent House party overperforming by 2.1%, the Democrats would win the NPV by only 5.5%. Coincidentally, that is the exact point at which 538 would consider the House a 50-50 tossup.

The past doesn't always predict the future, but I think this is something to think about.


2002: Republicans control WH & House

RCP average: R +1.7
Result: R +4.8

Outcome v. polls: R +3.1


2004: Republicans control WH & House

RCP average: R +0.0
Result: R +2.6

Outcome v. polls: R +2.6


2006: Republicans control WH & House

RCP average: D +11.5
Result: D +8.0

Outcome v. polls: R +3.5


2008: Republicans control WH, Democrats control House

RCP average: D +9.0
Result: D +10.6

Outcome v. polls: D +1.6


2010: Democrats control WH & House

RCP average: R +9.4
Result: R +6.8

Outcome v. polls: D +2.6


2012: Democrats control WH, Republicans control House

RCP average: R +0.2
Result: D +1.2

Outcome v. polls: D +1.4


2014: Democrats control WH, Republicans control House

RCP average: R +2.4
Result: R +5.7

Outcome v. polls: R +3.3


2016: Democrats control WH, Republicans control House

RCP average: D +0.6
Result: R +1.1

Outcome v. polls: R +1.7

[Mr. Smith]

ITT: A bunch of privileged whites who aren't suffering under Trump have no sympathy for the millions of people who are suffering under him, instead caring about their party winning elections in the way people care about their favorite sports team winning games.

For people, their life hasn't changed much under either Trump or Obama. Cost of housing is still increasing, rent still unaffordable, housing costs are unaffordable. People are working 3 jobs to support their family. American towns are dying across the country. Racial Discrimination and Racism has remained the same, police deaths and violence still occurs at the same rate.

Hillary's loss was (more accurately put Trump's win) was a tragedy and his economic decision will fix none of the economic issues in America and only serves to exacerbate it. With Obama, the problems would have been slightly mitigated, with Trump you are a stabbing a wound. The long-term economic and supreme court consequences of a Trump presidency would be disastrous but people are still suffering the same problems as before and people aren't suffering because of Trump, they were suffering before him (indefinitely for black people) and since the 1980's for whites that are working or middle class.

[IceSpear]

TIL People acting smug and assuming to know more than they actually do about the lives of minorities (something conservatives NEVER do) is more racist than trying to delegitimatize a black president, insisting that we need to preserve “white culture” in America, preventing people from certain countries from even entering the country, separating families and putting children in cages, marching with torches in favor of white nationalism, and trying to build a wall which will serve no purpose other than to make people feel safe from the scary Mexicans.

I mean, sure, you could point to a few individual liberals who are racist or say cringeworthy things, but to argue that liberals, on the whole, are the most racist? Yeah, that belongs in this thread.

[IceSpear]

Bullock isn't a right winger, he's very much an economic progressive. The difference is he will talk about bread and butter issues instead of divisive social issues like the urban NYC wing wants

Yes, divisive urban NYC issues like... unemployment, rent prices, infrastructure issues, gentrification, police brutality, and income inequality.

Some of you Dems who pull the whole "identity politics" BS are worse than the Republicans who do it.

Exactly. Thank you.

Gay/black/Hispanic/women's rights are not "identity politics". This are real issues that affect the economic and social lives of millions of Americans and their families.

For example, if you can be fired in 30/50 states simply for being LGBT, that's a civil rights AND economic issue. If you could be denied housing for being LGBT that's a civil rights AND economic issue. If you are paid less than men for the same job because you're a woman that's a civil rights AND economic issue.

Dismissing it as a "divisive issue" is wrong and abhorrent.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Bullock isn't a right winger, he's very much an economic progressive. The difference is he will talk about bread and butter issues instead of divisive social issues like the urban NYC wing wants

Yes, divisive urban NYC issues like... unemployment, rent prices, infrastructure issues, gentrification, police brutality, and income inequality.

Some of you Dems who pull the whole "identity politics" BS are worse than the Republicans who do it.

Exactly. Thank you.

Gay/black/Hispanic/women's rights are not "identity politics". This are real issues that affect the economic and social lives of millions of Americans and their families.

For example, if you can be fired in 30/50 states simply for being LGBT, that's a civil rights AND economic issue. If you could be denied housing for being LGBT that's a civil rights AND economic issue. If you are paid less than men for the same job because you're a woman that's a civil rights AND economic issue.

Dismissing it as a "divisive issue" is wrong and abhorrent.

Also, there's this weird misperception of Steve Bullock in how he is a moderate. People think that because he's a heartland "populist"  and #strongcandidate in a red state, he has to be an economic progressive and social moderate. He's not.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Steve_Bullock.htm. This has him as a moderate libertarian liberal who is substantially more liberal socially than economically. He's strongly pro-choice, repeatedly talks about fixing the wage gap, was the first governor to officiate a same-sex marriage, favors free trade, and is generally supportive of marijuana legalization. Regardless of whether Democrats should nominate someone who is quiet and moderate on social issues, Bullock is not that person.

[Fuzzy Bear]

A bit more radical than I would prefer, but encouraging. Gender isn't an opinion. There are two sexes and one's sex is determined by biology. Some people are trans and should be recognized as the other sex once they have undergone surgery.

And a transwoman that is taking hormones but is pre-op?  We are welcome to discriminate against her?  But that stops once she goes under the knife?  Your logic here is inconsistent as usual.

You gonna hide behind the moderate hero position od “look folks, I don’t wanna see those people discriminated against just like anyone else but it is up to congress to decide.  Now scuse me while I support candidates and parties that want to discriminate against them!”?

If this were about gay men or Jews you’d be having a conniption fit.

I still wonder why people think I feel the need to "hide behind" anything. I've always spoken my mind, it's not as if I've shied away from being politically incorrect, have I? I think trans people are legitimate. But these people are only truly of a different sex once they have changed their "equipment". In daily life of course everyone should feel free to present the way they like, and I will always use the pronouns and names one prefers (as long as it's him/her and not xir/zer). Live and let live.

But for the government to actually start recognizing this is a different matter. Government recognition for every "feeling" about gender essentially serves to delegitimize the idea that men and women are different, to promote the idea that gender is just a feeling and there might be 848 genders, who knows, bigot? I am absolutely appalled and disgusted with this development and with the diabolization of all critics of this development, and for that reason I view the Trump administration's measure as perhaps a bit too heavy-handed, but nonetheless finally a step in the right direction, which is very refreshing in a world that only seems to be walking in the wrong direction on issues like these.

[IceSpear]

I was only going by your avatar tbh ^

It's not about whether cuts will or won't be needed in the future (I'm not sure what viable plans will be pushed but I imagine cuts will be done), I was merely pointing out that if Republicans had practiced what they preached and been responsible stewards of the government, we wouldn't have such an insane level of debt to deal with. And this is really what bothers me about all of this. The GOP has spent decades borrowing and spending on everything from tax cuts to wars, and then every time it looks like the people get fed up with them, they turn around and scream about the safety net. It's dishonest, shameful and in my opinion, makes them unfit to govern. It would be a lot easier to deal with the growth of spending on these programs if we didn't also have tens of trillions of debt to deal with, much accrued from the irresponsible politicians in the Republican Party. It's not even like we need a perfectly balanced budget either. Having just 1/3rd-1/2 of our current debt would be substantially more manageable.

What also bothers me is that for all these years, Republican voters rarely ever held these people accountable. They just kept on electing the same Republicans who marched in lockstep with presidents who gave little thought to the idea of actually paying for your agenda. Even the Tea Party fanatics folded on tax cuts after years of whining about spending/the debt. Democrats did not do this to America. For all the perceived problems of the Democratic Party, at least they are tax and spenders. I'd much rather have someone who admits that, hey, you actually have to pay for this stuff, and does that, instead of pretending like they are taking care of things while secretly just racking up debt. People would never accept that kind of behavior from their kids/spouses or in a business. It's destructive and insane.

I actually do want us to start making major efforts to reduce the debt, and I would accept a lower standard of living if it meant a more secure future. I would feel better about the future if we could start finally making major efforts to address this problem. But as far as I am concerned, the GOP has thoroughly discredited itself as a responsible or viable partner in this endeavor. They behave like addicts with all of this, and they can't be trusted to do the right thing. They've had most of the power over the purse strings since the 90s and it's done nothing but drive this country into the ground. And even to this point, they still won't admit that their tax cuts and irresponsible fiscal stewardship has contributed immensely to the problem. They are either lying through their teeth on a daily basis, or they are completely delusional about any semblance of sane economic policy, and both are pretty bad. So until they as a party comes clean with this, they can go get bent as far as I am concerned.


TL;DR Uncomfortable cuts are probably eventually going to be necessary, but it probably didn't have to be this way (or at least not as bad), and that is thanks to the Republican Party's decades of lunacy

[Fuzzy Bear]

I can only speak for myself here. I like REAL moderate Republicans because they are driven by pragmatism and common sense and not that much by ideology. That allows them to be practical problem solvers who can reach a broader consensus among various intrests. Nelson Rockefeller for example never saw himself as an ideologue, instead he thought of himself to be a practical problem solver (he was liberal on some issues, more moderate or conservative on others, and even that changed over time). Moderate Republicans in the tradition of Nelson Rockefeller or George Romney are not destructive to the welfare state, instead they focus on economic growth and opportunity for everyone while being socially liberal and pro-environment. They support law enforcement but civil rights as well. All noble goals.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Anti-semitism is one of those things that a lot of us have been able to think was effectively gone: only something that cranks believe.  I think that the events of the last few years and especially this have woken a lot of people up; including myself.  It is important that we call out anti-semitism wherever we see it since that is probably the only vaguely effective way that vaguely ordinary people can prevent this sort of sh**t from happening.  I think that you have to the people around you though: may it be the people that you are politically involved with or your own family and friends.  In that regard I'm always going to be more critical of left-wing anti-semitism since those are people that I am theoretically closer to and I'd rather not have that crap further infest political communities that I support.  Talking a lot about the problems of the neighbours side while ignoring the leaking roof in your own house is something that isn't exactly going to benefit anyone: eventually you'll have to pay a lot more to fix the damage that you've ignored, and the neighbour will probably be affected by that leak and after that is probably a lot less likely to listen to your criticism of his house.

However since this attack was committed by a Nazi I think that it should be natural that the focus is on anti-semitism from the right; after all that is what caused this attack.  The normalisation of anti-semitic rhetoric in certain parts of the right is something which is very, very worrying and as David said its starting to bleed out of the sections of the right that no one really wants to be associated with to more... respectable, for lack of a better word, bits.  Rhetoric that a few years ago would have been outright rejected or at least led to very awkward silence is now tolerated a lot more and that isn't a good thing since by tolerating that sort of speech you effectively normalise it.  And that can lead to people like this evil man thinking that major political figures who've flirted with that sort of speech actually agrees with them which can weirdly end up radicalising them further.  Add in the right wing press which has shifted in a direction which seems to agree with a fair few anti-semitic tropes (the Soros stuff is the major one; Breitbart's weird focus on some Jewish organisations, etc) and you have an environment which is more friendly towards anti-semites and it should be no surprise that they've started to be more open.  Its the job of all of us to make sure that it doesn't become further normalised.

This thread has degenerated even further over the past few hours, with comments continuing to attack me and others for trying to present a reasoned perspective on these issues. People have continued to embark upon a great endeavor to politicize this issue, expressing opinions that are way over the line, and attacking any who deviate from those opinions. Throughout, I have emphasized that extremism exists on both ends of the political spectrum. Anti-semitism is reprehensible, no matter what form it is expressed in, and the violent massacre at this synagogue should not have occurred. But at the same time, I've been trying to warn people from turning this into a tool with which to hit their political opponents with. Unfortunately, people on here have not heeded that advice.

11 people were murdered by a Nazi just for being Jewish.  This is not equatable in any way to people being mean towards a dumb person on the internet who tries to deemphasise the political component of that violence and suggest that the average poster on this forum is equivalent to the evil man who murdered these people is incredibly, mindblowingly insulting.  To try and claim that the way that you have been treated on an internet forum is at all equatable to anti-semitic murder is disgusting and shows the massively misplaced ego that you have about yourself.  Not everything is about you and by claiming it is you show how little you care about others and how much you care only about yourself.