Sort of like the "Golden Rule". The one that says, the man with the gold makes the rules. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyClark
Printable View
Sort of like the "Golden Rule". The one that says, the man with the gold makes the rules. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyClark
Oh, certainly wasn’t intending to. Sorry if it came across that way!Quote:
Originally Posted by bundabergdevil
I think Jason went to extreme lengths to be even handed in citing infractions that both sides might have. If you don’t believe that or you were unable to see that I suggest you stay away from this thread. You are already taking us to a bad place.Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyClark
On a more analytical note, I increasingly feel like most members of Congress vote along party lines. As a result, for federal office, I think that people are increasingly pulling the party lever and really don’t care who is representing the party. At the state and local level this wasn’t as much the case but it is becoming increasingly relevant as states decide how elections occur and some big issues are being pushed to the state and local level (though that push has been very inconsistent).
Well, we didn't even get past a couple of hours before we have a post that has to be removed for breaking multiple rules and guidelines.Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyClark
Oh, no. It didn’t. I was just handing out turds.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldPhiKap
I could see that happening. What say the GOP nominee is a total election denier, Jan 6 "Patriot" supporter, and that rubs you the wrong way, yet at the same time the GOP candidate for the House is more in line with your views and doesn't rub the wrong way.Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonEvans
That's the exact scenario (the GOP nom #1 case) that is the reason this year is not going to be the Red Wave that we thought was likely a year ago, but will still likely be very close.
I first got to vote in the Ford v. Carter election. As tumultuous a time as that was it’s not like now. This is the first time I’ve worried about intimidation and violence.
I’ll be interested to see how accurate the polling is this time around. It seems pretty clear in retrospect that the last two Presidential cycles underestimated GOP support. Most of the pollsters believe they have corrected for that this time around, but they also thought that in 2020.
If we see the same trend emerge this year, it may be time to accept that traditional polling methods have a harder time reaching the typical GOP voter (tend to be older, more rural, etc.).
I mean, he literally said “Don't post here that the GOP are evil because they want to take away a woman's right to choose” right in the post you quoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyClark
I agree with matches about the polling. If they are way off again then I’m not sure how useful they even are. Are the polling companies even trying to fix their mistakes? They say they are but the results have been bad recently.
With the understanding that the 2016 polling miss was a harder miss to target because of the pandemic and the midterm of 2018 polling was quite good. Also 2020 at least got the direction correct. It was the magnitude that was off. In other words I don't know that we have enough data to say these misses are related. That doesn't mean they will be "right" this time, but them being off may not be related to the last couple of cycles either. Plus this is a midterm and not a presidential year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matches
Many polls showed swing voters displeased with Democratic leadership in COVID response as it relates to restrictions/school closures and the like. So, that indicated a potential Republican wave like we saw with the Governor election result in Virginia. Suburban voters propelled that victory. But now most of those restrictions and school closures are in the rearview mirror so perhaps it's not top of mind as much. Conversely, most polls show pretty broad support on abortion rights and the Supreme Court has made that front and center now. So, that probably helps Democrats in some areas for voters that are passionate about that issue and live in a state that has changed policies. Strategic Republican pundits have cited that they believe the timing for that Supreme Court decision is not in their favor and would have been better from a political standpoint for it to occur after the midterms.
And then you have unprecedented spending by Democrats supporting far right Republicans in the primaries. There are several articles about this in the NY Times if you Google. Some think this is a great sensible strategy and others view it as high risk. In my state, the Democratic Governor Pritzker spent $30M+ of his own money to advertise for Trump-backed Darren Bailey as he didn't want to face the more moderate Richard Irvin. And it paid off -- as Bailey won the nomination and polls show that IL is unlikely to back him.
Suffice it to say, a lot of interesting plotlines and I don't know how it will all turn out. 😉
If I know anything, Democrats trying to tip the scales in favor of the candidate they want to run against because they think that candidate would be easier to beat (on account of them being so unimaginable to vote for) is dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluedog
The old adage, “Be careful what you wish for,” is definitely true in this instance. It’s really playing with fire when either party attempts this kind of stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by bundabergdevil
I'm really confused. Literally every time I gave one example of forbidden behavior, I gave another one that demonstrated similarly unacceptable posting ideas from the other side. Do you think my initial post in this thread demonstrates some kind of bias? Whew... maybe I made a mistake starting this thing back up ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyClark
Well, go to the 1968 election (Nixon-Humphrey), which was a wild and scary time (the two smells that I most associate with my time at Duke (1966-70) are pot and tear gas).Quote:
Originally Posted by accfanfrom1970
It was right after the wild Democratic convention in Chicago, the killing of MLK and RFK, the middle of the Viet Nam protests, and George Wallace was roaming around in Carolina and the rest of the South. It seemed that the country was coming apart.
I realize that I was a naive white kid from far upstate New York and so somewhat isolated from reality, but I never doubted the integrity of that election. I can't say that about upcoming elections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigWayne
While both parties may be diametrically opposed, that does not mean I have to like their ideas. Pick any of the hot button issues, Jason, that you say must not be mentioned. In general those ideas are more extreme and out of touch with the average person who would like some compromise in the middle. I don't care what issue it is, I feel like the parties are losing the middle. There are many reasons, but the biggest has already been mentioned, the nationalization of politics. Politics used to always be local, but recently it's becoming national. The conservative democrats are extinct in the south and the liberal republicans are mostly extinct in the north east and west.Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonEvans
I quite often find the parties are increasingly extreme and their politicians increasingly unfit for office such that I must vote for neither of them. Quite often I take their attack ads to heart and conclude neither are fit for office.
I think all of this can be true. This video summarizes how I feel about voting this days.
https://youtu.be/U_eZmEiyTo0?t=93
I would love to see a "None of the above" option on the ballot, or a strong third party candidate, but sadly no one is coming to our rescue.
Totally agree - you’d think 2016 would have buried that line of thought permanently, but we seem to have short memories.Quote:
Originally Posted by bundabergdevil
Yep. I seem to remember people on this very board, living in open-primary states, crossing the line to vote Trump in as the GOP nominee in 2016 thinking he would be the easy one to defeat. Wow! Talk about a blunder. And we've certainly seen that same thinking take place earlier this year in several state primaries. Will be interesting to see if that strategy finally works, or backfires yet again. The entire Senate may rest on that very point in just a couple of key states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matches
Was there any ever evidence to suggest this put Trump over the top for winning the nomination? Seems like the number of people voting with this tactic would have to be pretty large to make any difference to the eventual outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernDukie
I agree. And from an optics perspective, it is a no win situation. If the Democrats win all of these seats, who is to say that it is because of this strategy or if they would have won the seats anyway? They can do all the polling they want but they won't know for sure (I will say for the first of many times in this thread that I think that most polls are totally useless and I am glad they have largely been discredited). And if they lose any of these seats, they end up with some major egg on their faces. As much as it seems like politicians have unlimited funds, they don't, so resources have to be allocated wisely - not sure if this was the best use of resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthernDukie
I am incredibly frightened about the normalization of distrust in election results, often without any evidence whatsoever other than fearmongering. This relates to an increased distrust in the basic institutions of government on which our country was run relatively successfully (with some obvious major hiccups) for well over 200 years. Assigning blame on any of this is well beyond the scope and rules of this thread so I am not going there, but I think it is worth mentioning as the immediate aftermath of election day is likely to be chaos and more polarization and tribalism than we ever thought was possible. There was some discussion after 2020 about cleaning up some of the low hanging fruit to make things run slightly more smoothly, but I think that accomplishing that required some level of consensus, and that largely no longer exists.