Avatar2go wrote:

Seems like Dems were at fault in NY. They pushed too far on redistricting, and then fought amongst themselves over the results. Rather than playing as a team.

In FL, the redistricting held off challenges, and the GOP worked together to take full advantage.

In the end, it cost the Dems the House majority, although no one really saw that it would be so close.

Ironic that in NY, the courts would be less partisan in their reviews, and that was more costly than FL courts which are more partisan. But that's how democracy works, it remains fair even when fairness benefits the opposition.

Gerrymandering + first by the post is as far from democratic as you can get without becoming "banana republic". Add to that unlimited corporate money in elections and you're in banana republic territory.

Aesma wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Seems like Dems were at fault in NY. They pushed too far on redistricting, and then fought amongst themselves over the results. Rather than playing as a team.

In FL, the redistricting held off challenges, and the GOP worked together to take full advantage.

In the end, it cost the Dems the House majority, although no one really saw that it would be so close.

Ironic that in NY, the courts would be less partisan in their reviews, and that was more costly than FL courts which are more partisan. But that's how democracy works, it remains fair even when fairness benefits the opposition.

Gerrymandering + first by the post is as far from democratic as you can get without becoming "banana republic". Add to that unlimited corporate money in elections and you're in banana republic territory.

My point was that in NY, the courts stood against excessive partisan redistricting, and that worked to the advantage of the GOP. But that's how it should be, redistricting should not give an irredeemable advantage to the incumbent party.

Even though that is what happened in Florida. And to be fair, the Democrats have done the same in other states, such as Illinois.

It's often the case that democracy ends up fostering those who may not be so democratic. It's the price of democracy.

phatfarmlines wrote:

casinterest wrote:

With 97 % of the votes in , it looks like Hobbs will win Az.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/resul ... a/governor

There are 2.5 milion votes in, with only probably 75,000 outstanding

There is a +20 thousand vote differential between Hobbs and Lake.,

even if it goes 60% 40% those last 75K votes, there isn't enough votes for Lake.


A quick search shows MSNBC and NBC are calling for Hobbs, but i expect others will hold out longer for another vote tally.

//edit CNN just called it at 9:15 EDT

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

At the end, FiveThirtyEight got quite a few of the predictions wrong for this election cycle. It really goes to show you just how topsy-turvy elections have become.

Newt Gingrich going on Hannity was not the end-all-be-all the GOP was hoping for.

The polls did miss a lot, but they were within a pretty close margin of error. Even Nate said it on his blogs before the election.

Bliue Nate
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... ion-night/

Bleu: To be fair, it’s not just you. It’s everybody. You and me and everyone in the media. Everybody is terrified of predicting that anything good happens for Democrats, having a replay of 2016 and looking foolish again.

I think Nate hit it on the head here.

Look, it’s not a great situation. As America gets more partisan, and trust in institutions erodes, there are a lot of downstream, negative consequences for pollsters. To start with, most people basically don’t answer phone calls from unknown numbers anymore. So people who do answer polls are weird in some sense, and they may not be representative of the electorate. You used to be able to default to more of a gold standard in polling — it was expensive, but you could do it. Now, there are a lot more choices to make. On top of that, trust in the media is about as low as it’s ever been. Does that make pollsters more likely to stick with the herd instead of publishing numbers that could cause them a lot of grief? Maybe, but I’m not going to make too many assumptions about that until Tuesday.

I think this poses some interesting issues going forward in regards to polling and self inflating egos pushing the drive towards policy.

We learned that the Democrats were able to exploit gerrymandered districts to get favorable matchups.

In a year where conventional logic assumed that economy/crime should have been a slam dunk winner, it was not. I always assumed the issue was going to come down to peoples rights being taken away with CRT and Aboriton vs the economy and crime. I just didn't imagine that the GOP had swallowed so much of their own poison pill, that they never really saw the issues with personal rights drving voting. Now inflation is easing, and people see a path forward for he economy under Biden, it may hurt Walker in Georgia quite a bit more. Espcially if Trump and his toxicity do start a campaign today.

What does this mean for policy and positions going forward though? The GOP now has a problem. They can't win on the economy, and their own brand toxicity is killing thier growth with the younger voters.

How do they solve this moving into 2024 where Mike Pence, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Ron Desants, and Greg Abbott all want a shot?

casinterest wrote:

How do they solve this moving into 2024 where Mike Pence, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Ron Desants, and Greg Abbott all want a shot?

Josh Hawley will just come *running* in between them.

casinterest wrote:

phatfarmlines wrote:

casinterest wrote:

With 97 % of the votes in , it looks like Hobbs will win Az.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/resul ... a/governor

There are 2.5 milion votes in, with only probably 75,000 outstanding

There is a +20 thousand vote differential between Hobbs and Lake.,

even if it goes 60% 40% those last 75K votes, there isn't enough votes for Lake.


A quick search shows MSNBC and NBC are calling for Hobbs, but i expect others will hold out longer for another vote tally.

//edit CNN just called it at 9:15 EDT

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

At the end, FiveThirtyEight got quite a few of the predictions wrong for this election cycle. It really goes to show you just how topsy-turvy elections have become.

Newt Gingrich going on Hannity was not the end-all-be-all the GOP was hoping for.

The polls did miss a lot, but they were within a pretty close margin of error. Even Nate said it on his blogs before the election.

Bliue Nate
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... ion-night/

Bleu: To be fair, it’s not just you. It’s everybody. You and me and everyone in the media. Everybody is terrified of predicting that anything good happens for Democrats, having a replay of 2016 and looking foolish again.

I think Nate hit it on the head here.

Look, it’s not a great situation. As America gets more partisan, and trust in institutions erodes, there are a lot of downstream, negative consequences for pollsters. To start with, most people basically don’t answer phone calls from unknown numbers anymore. So people who do answer polls are weird in some sense, and they may not be representative of the electorate. You used to be able to default to more of a gold standard in polling — it was expensive, but you could do it. Now, there are a lot more choices to make. On top of that, trust in the media is about as low as it’s ever been. Does that make pollsters more likely to stick with the herd instead of publishing numbers that could cause them a lot of grief? Maybe, but I’m not going to make too many assumptions about that until Tuesday.

I think this poses some interesting issues going forward in regards to polling and self inflating egos pushing the drive towards policy.

We learned that the Democrats were able to exploit gerrymandered districts to get favorable matchups.

In a year where conventional logic assumed that economy/crime should have been a slam dunk winner, it was not. I always assumed the issue was going to come down to peoples rights being taken away with CRT and Aboriton vs the economy and crime. I just didn't imagine that the GOP had swallowed so much of their own poison pill, that they never really saw the issues with personal rights drving voting. Now inflation is easing, and people see a path forward for he economy under Biden, it may hurt Walker in Georgia quite a bit more. Espcially if Trump and his toxicity do start a campaign today.

What does this mean for policy and positions going forward though? The GOP now has a problem. They can't win on the economy, and their own brand toxicity is killing thier growth with the younger voters.

How do they solve this moving into 2024 where Mike Pence, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Ron Desants, and Greg Abbott all want a shot?

On a recent podcast, Nate mentioned that they are starting to rank email pollsters higher than phone polls just because email had a better chance of reaching a wider variety of people. The technology is getting good enough that you can get a qualify sample from an email poll.

LittleFokker wrote:

casinterest wrote:

phatfarmlines wrote:

At the end, FiveThirtyEight got quite a few of the predictions wrong for this election cycle. It really goes to show you just how topsy-turvy elections have become.

Newt Gingrich going on Hannity was not the end-all-be-all the GOP was hoping for.

The polls did miss a lot, but they were within a pretty close margin of error. Even Nate said it on his blogs before the election.

Bliue Nate
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/th ... ion-night/

Bleu: To be fair, it’s not just you. It’s everybody. You and me and everyone in the media. Everybody is terrified of predicting that anything good happens for Democrats, having a replay of 2016 and looking foolish again.

I think Nate hit it on the head here.

Look, it’s not a great situation. As America gets more partisan, and trust in institutions erodes, there are a lot of downstream, negative consequences for pollsters. To start with, most people basically don’t answer phone calls from unknown numbers anymore. So people who do answer polls are weird in some sense, and they may not be representative of the electorate. You used to be able to default to more of a gold standard in polling — it was expensive, but you could do it. Now, there are a lot more choices to make. On top of that, trust in the media is about as low as it’s ever been. Does that make pollsters more likely to stick with the herd instead of publishing numbers that could cause them a lot of grief? Maybe, but I’m not going to make too many assumptions about that until Tuesday.

I think this poses some interesting issues going forward in regards to polling and self inflating egos pushing the drive towards policy.

We learned that the Democrats were able to exploit gerrymandered districts to get favorable matchups.

In a year where conventional logic assumed that economy/crime should have been a slam dunk winner, it was not. I always assumed the issue was going to come down to peoples rights being taken away with CRT and Aboriton vs the economy and crime. I just didn't imagine that the GOP had swallowed so much of their own poison pill, that they never really saw the issues with personal rights drving voting. Now inflation is easing, and people see a path forward for he economy under Biden, it may hurt Walker in Georgia quite a bit more. Espcially if Trump and his toxicity do start a campaign today.

What does this mean for policy and positions going forward though? The GOP now has a problem. They can't win on the economy, and their own brand toxicity is killing thier growth with the younger voters.

How do they solve this moving into 2024 where Mike Pence, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Ron Desants, and Greg Abbott all want a shot?

On a recent podcast, Nate mentioned that they are starting to rank email pollsters higher than phone polls just because email had a better chance of reaching a wider variety of people. The technology is getting good enough that you can get a qualify sample from an email poll.

I could see that, but then the issue becomes whether you are sampling everyone equally. The elderly do nto use email with a lot of voracity, although every year that changes. Online polls have a tendency to be skewed if not done properly.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... rch-vessel

All this talk of gerrymandering and polls, but what we really need is to take money out of politics. Look at how much money was spent on ads and meet-and-greets for candidates. ALL candidates. It is disgusting. We have the best government money can buy. And it ain't that great. For all those millions and millions of dollars spent on this last campaign, the message from Democrats was "we are bad but not like election deniers!" and the GOP message was "vote for us because we are not Democrats!" That's what we got for millions of dollars.

Take money out of politics.

seb146 wrote:

All this talk of gerrymandering and polls, but what we really need is to take money out of politics. Look at how much money was spent on ads and meet-and-greets for candidates. ALL candidates. It is disgusting. We have the best government money can buy. And it ain't that great. For all those millions and millions of dollars spent on this last campaign, the message from Democrats was "we are bad but not like election deniers!" and the GOP message was "vote for us because we are not Democrats!" That's what we got for millions of dollars.

Take money out of politics.

Well. that would take an act of congress. You know they don't vote themselves out of financial benefits.

seb146 wrote:

That's what we got for millions of dollars.

Take money out of politics.

Eh. Not to sound too cynical but if political strategists want to believe their own hype and pollsters want to believe their statistics from self-selecting respondents and donors want to pour their millions into flawed perceptions of what the voters will vote for, who cares? Come Election Day said voters will provide a reality check.

Much is said about “low information voters” and people voting against their own supposed self-interest and so on but usually the voters turn out to be smarter than the “experts” give them credit for.

To borrow an old axiom from the advertising industry, 90% of the dollars spent are wasted, you just don’t know which 90%.

QF7

casinterest wrote:

seb146 wrote:

All this talk of gerrymandering and polls, but what we really need is to take money out of politics. Look at how much money was spent on ads and meet-and-greets for candidates. ALL candidates. It is disgusting. We have the best government money can buy. And it ain't that great. For all those millions and millions of dollars spent on this last campaign, the message from Democrats was "we are bad but not like election deniers!" and the GOP message was "vote for us because we are not Democrats!" That's what we got for millions of dollars.

Take money out of politics.

Well. that would take an act of congress. You know they don't vote themselves out of financial benefits.

Citizens United which was argued in front of the Supreme Court made the problem worse. We could file law suit after law suit but, with the courts packed far to the right, that would be fruitless...

seb146 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

seb146 wrote:

All this talk of gerrymandering and polls, but what we really need is to take money out of politics. Look at how much money was spent on ads and meet-and-greets for candidates. ALL candidates. It is disgusting. We have the best government money can buy. And it ain't that great. For all those millions and millions of dollars spent on this last campaign, the message from Democrats was "we are bad but not like election deniers!" and the GOP message was "vote for us because we are not Democrats!" That's what we got for millions of dollars.

Take money out of politics.

Well. that would take an act of congress. You know they don't vote themselves out of financial benefits.

Citizens United which was argued in front of the Supreme Court made the problem worse. We could file law suit after law suit but, with the courts packed far to the right, that would be fruitless...

Absolutely Citizens United made it worse.
However in light of what happened this year, perhaps those donors would think more logically about whether they are getting the bang for their buck through Super Pacs?

Of course some will funnel to bad news outlets/paid advertising. However maybe what we are starting to see is the real migration of the potlical parties. Maybe we will get more parties, as people realize that they may not get what they need in a 2 party system, when they could promote another party to get their agenda through ?

casinterest wrote:

Maybe we will get more parties, as people realize that they may not get what they need in a 2 party system, when they could promote another party to get their agenda through ?

That can't possibly work; the two party system is baked into our politics as long as we still have the US Constitution. With three parties, the third party will always take its support from the closest party to its own beliefs - and this will always give the other party the victory.

Always, always, always.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... -politics/

And good luck getting two thirds support for scrapping the Constitution and implementing a parliamentary system.

Vintage wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Maybe we will get more parties, as people realize that they may not get what they need in a 2 party system, when they could promote another party to get their agenda through ?

That can't possibly work; the two party system is baked into our politics as long as we still have the US Constitution. With three parties, the third party will always take its support from the closest party to its own beliefs - and this will always give the other party the victory.

Always, always, always.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... -politics/

And good luck getting two thirds support for scrapping the Constitution and implementing a parliamentary system.

The issue is coming though where the GOP and the Big Lie Supporters need to part. The Progressives and Democrat moderates need to part as well.

There is a difference between Social, Military, and Econmic spending, and I think at some point we need to move from 2 to at least 8 parties fighting for those 3 Areas.
Yes there is overlap, but that is part of building a coaliion of agreement

casinterest wrote:

Vintage wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Maybe we will get more parties, as people realize that they may not get what they need in a 2 party system, when they could promote another party to get their agenda through ?

That can't possibly work; the two party system is baked into our politics as long as we still have the US Constitution. With three parties, the third party will always take its support from the closest party to its own beliefs - and this will always give the other party the victory.

Always, always, always.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... -politics/

And good luck getting two thirds support for scrapping the Constitution and implementing a parliamentary system.

The issue is coming though where the GOP and the Big Lie Supporters need to part. The Progressives and Democrat moderates need to part as well.

There is a difference between Social, Military, and Econmic spending, and I think at some point we need to move from 2 to at least 8 parties fighting for those 3 Areas.
Yes there is overlap, but that is part of building a coaliion of agreement

Then you want a parliamentary system; so do I. However the system created by US constitution, will never allow coalitions to work here.

As long as the GOP keeps shooting themselfs in the foot, they will struggle. Their very anti-civil-freedom stance in the name of religion just cost them the mid-terms, together with the ever looming trumpism. Now we know they have to deal with that issue again over the next two years.

If the GOP do not get their shit together soon and start to break lose of religion and trump and become a normal conservative party, the dems will probably win the next presidential election with a dead Joe Biden if necessary.

In Colorado, voters who have uncured ballots are being pursued by both parties. The deadline is close of business today, and there are still hundreds of ballots outstanding. The House race is still within 1200 votes, with Boebert leading.

https://www.cpr.org/2022/11/15/lauren-b ... ot-curing/

In Arizona, Kari Lake has still not conceded to Katie Hobbs and is considering an election challenge.

Vintage wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Vintage wrote:

That can't possibly work; the two party system is baked into our politics as long as we still have the US Constitution. With three parties, the third party will always take its support from the closest party to its own beliefs - and this will always give the other party the victory.

Always, always, always.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... -politics/

And good luck getting two thirds support for scrapping the Constitution and implementing a parliamentary system.

The issue is coming though where the GOP and the Big Lie Supporters need to part. The Progressives and Democrat moderates need to part as well.

There is a difference between Social, Military, and Econmic spending, and I think at some point we need to move from 2 to at least 8 parties fighting for those 3 Areas.
Yes there is overlap, but that is part of building a coaliion of agreement

Then you want a parliamentary system; so do I. However the system created by US constitution, will never allow coalitions to work here.

They can work if enough people stop holding onto a 2 party system.

DeSantis is less worse than Trump for sure (or maybe actually worse, as he could get more harm done), but does winning reelection in Florida really make him a good presidential candidate ? I don't get the hype, especially knowing it seems to be a slick orchestrated campaign and not "grassroots" at all.

Vintage wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Maybe we will get more parties, as people realize that they may not get what they need in a 2 party system, when they could promote another party to get their agenda through ?

That can't possibly work; the two party system is baked into our politics as long as we still have the US Constitution. With three parties, the third party will always take its support from the closest party to its own beliefs - and this will always give the other party the victory.

Always, always, always.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... -politics/

And good luck getting two thirds support for scrapping the Constitution and implementing a parliamentary system.

The 2 party system is linked to first by the post. And not helped by the bureaucracy of needing to follow 50 sets of rules if you want to run at the national level. You need millions just to be a candidate. Does the constitution mandade first by the post ? Can't a state decide to apportion House seats proportionally ?

Here in France a Ford employee making gearboxes (and now unemployed...) has been a presidential candidate a couple of times, and not with a rich party behind him. He got 1% and 0,5% of the vote. Before him the candidate of this party was a postman, who got up to 5% of the vote. They had the same time on TV (in debates, interviews, and ads) as any other candidate as equality is mandated by law.

Candidates from 3rd parties don't often win, but it can happen, famously with current president Emmanuel Macron of course, whose party he created less than a year before being elected.

Aesma wrote:

Candidates from 3rd parties don't often win, but it can happen, famously with current president Emmanuel Macron of course, whose party he created less than a year before being elected.

The difference is that in France you have a Parliamentary system, it has nothing to do with 50 state's bureaucracy. In your system, that assembly line worker could have real effect if another party or a group of parties found themselves 1% (or 5 %) short of a majority and accepted him as a coalition member and took on a cause of his in return for his share of power.

That's not the case here in the US, because here the winner takes all, there is no post election bargaining. If the small guy gets 1% or 5% or even 35% of the vote, he or she gets nothing other than praise from CNN. What actually happens is that this small guy has bled votes from the other party that is closest in ideology to himself, thus assuring that both he and his closest soulmate will lose to an undivided opponent. This has happened repeatedly in the US: John Anderson, Ross Perot are recent examples, and it is obvious to me that Bernie Sanders caused Clinton's loss in 2016.

“Duverger’s law” states that third parties can’t compete because there is no prize for winning,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... -politics/

Vintage wrote:

Aesma wrote:

That's not the case here in the US, because here the winner takes all, there is no post election bargaining. If the small guy gets 1% or 5% or even 35% of the vote, he or she gets nothing other than praise from CNN. What actually happens is that this small guy has bled votes from the other party that is closest in ideology to himself, thus assuring that both he and his closest soulmate will lose to an undivided opponent. This has happened repeatedly in the US: John Anderson, Ross Perot are recent examples, and it is obvious to me that Bernie Sanders caused Clinton's loss in 2016.

What does happen if Trump were to run an an independent and was able to stop the Democrat or Republican from getting to 270. Does the presidential selection go to congress?

StarAC17 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Aesma wrote:

That's not the case here in the US, because here the winner takes all, there is no post election bargaining. If the small guy gets 1% or 5% or even 35% of the vote, he or she gets nothing other than praise from CNN. What actually happens is that this small guy has bled votes from the other party that is closest in ideology to himself, thus assuring that both he and his closest soulmate will lose to an undivided opponent. This has happened repeatedly in the US: John Anderson, Ross Perot are recent examples, and it is obvious to me that Bernie Sanders caused Clinton's loss in 2016.

What does happen if Trump were to run an an independent and was able to stop the Democrat or Republican from getting to 270. Does the presidential selection go to congress?

Yes. The Electoral College vote would go to Congress which will be made up of MAGA election deniers, actual Republicans and Democrats. That would be interesting. I wonder how many MAGA election deniers try to overthrow the government this time?

StarAC17 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Aesma wrote:

That's not the case here in the US, because here the winner takes all, there is no post election bargaining. If the small guy gets 1% or 5% or even 35% of the vote, he or she gets nothing other than praise from CNN. What actually happens is that this small guy has bled votes from the other party that is closest in ideology to himself, thus assuring that both he and his closest soulmate will lose to an undivided opponent. This has happened repeatedly in the US: John Anderson, Ross Perot are recent examples, and it is obvious to me that Bernie Sanders caused Clinton's loss in 2016.

What does happen if Trump were to run an an independent and was able to stop the Democrat or Republican from getting to 270. Does the presidential selection go to congress?

More likely than not, that would cost the Republican candidate votes at the state level, and just result in a higher electoral result for the Democratic candidate.

seb146 wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

What does happen if Trump were to run an an independent and was able to stop the Democrat or Republican from getting to 270. Does the presidential selection go to congress?

Yes. The Electoral College vote would go to Congress which will be made up of MAGA election deniers, actual Republicans and Democrats. That would be interesting. I wonder how many MAGA election deniers try to overthrow the government this time?

A lot of those MAGA election deniers got their butts kicked last week.

With a thin Republican majority in the house if it were to happen that their is no majority in the EC in 2024 then it would likely go to the GOP candidate and not Trump or be another stalemate.
Perhaps some moderate republicans vote the democrat in depending on who the nominee is.

NIKV69 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Send him a note. Please.

No need he is getting plenty of them already. I can't see him running at this point. He has an ego but he is also smart and it's time to be Kingmaker and not King.

I think you need to get your crystal ball to the repair shop. Doesn't seem to be working very well

StarAC17 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

What does happen if Trump were to run an an independent and was able to stop the Democrat or Republican from getting to 270. Does the presidential selection go to congress?

Yes. The Electoral College vote would go to Congress which will be made up of MAGA election deniers, actual Republicans and Democrats. That would be interesting. I wonder how many MAGA election deniers try to overthrow the government this time?

A lot of those MAGA election deniers got their butts kicked last week.

With a thin Republican majority in the house if it were to happen that their is no majority in the EC in 2024 then it would likely go to the GOP candidate and not Trump or be another stalemate.
Perhaps some moderate republicans vote the democrat in depending on who the nominee is.

Republican leadership will either have to kick out the MAGA extremists or kick out the centrists. Either way, Republican voters and Republican members of Congress will be angry. I gotta grab two years worth of popcorn!

I think the obvious is being overlooked, what percentage of Americans vote in the Federal election versus local and state?
If a independent candidate runs for president I go along with the belief that he would bleed votes from the party closest to his ideology, however, Trump is not an ordinary individual. Is there another ex-president who get as much press by the main stream media, whose thoughts and ideas on current affairs are still widely published, sometimes I wonder if the media is actually fixated or they want the current administration to govern by stealth, no scrutiny.
If Trump does run as an independent I think you will see the highest every voter turn out in the USA for a federal election, and all the election experts will be lost as to how those Americans will vote.
As for why the media is saying the GOP margin is narrow, they are also the ones who say the GOP House members are always in lock step ( no individual thought) so what difference does it make? Generalizations at the national level for some things does not assist critical thinking, especially among those who need someone's ideology to follow.

ER757 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Send him a note. Please.

No need he is getting plenty of them already. I can't see him running at this point. He has an ego but he is also smart and it's time to be Kingmaker and not King.

I think you need to get your crystal ball to the repair shop. Doesn't seem to be working very well

Time will tell but I don't see this getting to the debates. without the media and part backing you it's futile.

NIKV69 wrote:

ER757 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

No need he is getting plenty of them already. I can't see him running at this point. He has an ego but he is also smart and it's time to be Kingmaker and not King.

I think you need to get your crystal ball to the repair shop. Doesn't seem to be working very well

Time will tell but I don't see this getting to the debates. without the media and part backing you it's futile.

I thought Trump showed that one could get elected to the highest office using social media and ignoring the mainstream media, at least that's the "general" thinking.

par13del wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

ER757 wrote:

I think you need to get your crystal ball to the repair shop. Doesn't seem to be working very well

Time will tell but I don't see this getting to the debates. without the media and part backing you it's futile.

I thought Trump showed that one could get elected to the highest office using social media and ignoring the mainstream media, at least that's the "general" thinking.

He still had FOX behind him and he doesn't have that any more.

par13del wrote:

I think the obvious is being overlooked, what percentage of Americans vote in the Federal election versus local and state?
If a independent candidate runs for president I go along with the belief that he would bleed votes from the party closest to his ideology, however, Trump is not an ordinary individual. Is there another ex-president who get as much press by the main stream media, whose thoughts and ideas on current affairs are still widely published, sometimes I wonder if the media is actually fixated or they want the current administration to govern by stealth, no scrutiny.
If Trump does run as an independent I think you will see the highest every voter turn out in the USA for a federal election, and all the election experts will be lost as to how those Americans will vote.
As for why the media is saying the GOP margin is narrow, they are also the ones who say the GOP House members are always in lock step ( no individual thought) so what difference does it make? Generalizations at the national level for some things does not assist critical thinking, especially among those who need someone's ideology to follow.

- I think about 50% of eligible Americans vote federally and its lower for local and state.
- We know in 1992 that Ross Perot took enough of the vote to give Clinton that election.
- Trump is very ordinary who is just a loud mouth who was never checked. Most presidents don't want the media attention post their presidency because they are sick of it and its an unwritten rule. The mainstream media could ignore him but he brings ratings and cash is king. If the US media believed in serving their country they would ignore him.
- If he runs as an independent the democrat wins in a landslide. Even if votes for Trump and the GOP candidate splits a majority vote the democrat will get the plurality and you could see red states going blue in the EC if Trump and GOP splits votes. IIRC the one with the most votes takes the state and if Trump gets 15% the GOP gets 40% and the democrat gets 45% that state goes blue. This could flip Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee and Florida. I could be wrong but this is my impression on how the Electoral college works.

StarAC17 wrote:

- I think about 50% of eligible Americans vote federally and its lower for local and state.
- We know in 1992 that Ross Perot took enough of the vote to give Clinton that election.
- Trump is very ordinary who is just a loud mouth who was never checked. Most presidents don't want the media attention post their presidency because they are sick of it and its an unwritten rule. The mainstream media could ignore him but he brings ratings and cash is king. If the US media believed in serving their country they would ignore him.
- If he runs as an independent the democrat wins in a landslide. Even if votes for Trump and the GOP candidate splits a majority vote the democrat will get the plurality and you could see red states going blue in the EC if Trump and GOP splits votes. IIRC the one with the most votes takes the state and if Trump gets 15% the GOP gets 40% and the democrat gets 45% that state goes blue. This could flip Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee and Florida. I could be wrong but this is my impression on how the Electoral college works.

You're correct about the last part.

It's not just about "flipping" state but also the fact that any states that were close (i.e. NC, Wisconsin, Michigan of 2020, Georgia) would basically be in Dems' hand. If it's Desantis v. Trump v. some Dem candidate Florida would also be in play. Iowa and Ohio (53-47 in favor of Trump)? Those would go Dem. And Texas? That will be way too close and could flip blue.

That leaves...ehh...something like 125 EVs left for Republicans (vs. 400+ for Dems).

For the reasons detailed above Trump running third party is the nightmare scenario for Republicans and therefore I very much doubt it will be allowed to happen.

Newark727 wrote:

For the reasons detailed above Trump running third party is the nightmare scenario for Republicans and therefore I very much doubt it will be allowed to happen.

I totally agree - I think they'd rather charge into the election with Trump at the helm again, and get resoundingly spanked, but maybe hold the house and maybe eke out the presidency, than to allow him to run 3rd party. If all the true MAGA faithful voted MAGA Party in 2024, Republicans would be obliterated like the Whigs.

I'm a pretty liberal guy, never voted for a Republican except in uncontested races, so I understand I'm a partisan, but I've seen Republicans I would have voted for. I do not want to see them wiped off the face of the earth, not because I have any affection for their policies or love for a particular Republican, but because I'm totally terrified of what comes after...

A hypothetical MAGA Party is a fascist organization, replete with paramilitary insurrectionists who are well-armed. You may think with their cult of personality, and occult beliefs in QAnon, with their distinctive symbology, hand signals, musical themes, and fun outfits, that they're fringe and harmless, kind of like adults who go to Disney. Sure, they deny reality too. Disney reference, of course, right timeframe, wrong country. Probably harmless, right?... Right?

Newark727 wrote:

For the reasons detailed above Trump running third party is the nightmare scenario for Republicans and therefore I very much doubt it will be allowed to happen.

So they will just roll over and play dead to Trump ?

I don't see it, take the loss in 2024, blame Trump for another election loss and move on to Desantis in 2028.

jetwet1 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

For the reasons detailed above Trump running third party is the nightmare scenario for Republicans and therefore I very much doubt it will be allowed to happen.

So they will just roll over and play dead to Trump ?

I don't see it, take the loss in 2024, blame Trump for another election loss and move on to Desantis in 2028.

Maybe they will, but a evidenced today. The House is not going to move on so easy with Trump allies trying to push their vendettas .

Trump still has a far reach, and his accolytes will still be pushing his agenda.

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/11/ ... house.html

Wouldn’t ve the first party on the right wing fringe that imploded due to the internal lack of logic and coherency combined with leadership figures colliding.

That’s why, in many political scientists view, it is wrong to assume, as many does, germany would have gone the way of Nazismus even if Hitler had for instance died in a car accident in 1932.
Yes, Versailles, poverty and nationalism played it’s part, but the Nazi party was quite small in most of that period. Without Hitler, the nazi party would have imploded from their inherent weakness of just being wrong in so many different and conflicting ways, like most extreme right wing movements do,and the the moderate right wing or the Social democrats would have pulled it off.

I think this is a direct parallell to what we are seeing with the GOP. Trump, luckily, wasn’t quite as good as Hitler, and the party now implodes. The USA dodged the bullet.

Hopefully, you might see 4 parties out of this. The fascist MAGA-party, the clumsy christian conservatives, the centrist/right Liberal party, and finally a Social Democratic party marking the first occurence of a mainstream american left wing party.

The current Democratic party also covers way too much ground. They encompass almost the entire political spectrum of most western democracies. In some countries they alone would have been 5 or 6 parties.

casinterest wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

For the reasons detailed above Trump running third party is the nightmare scenario for Republicans and therefore I very much doubt it will be allowed to happen.

So they will just roll over and play dead to Trump ?

I don't see it, take the loss in 2024, blame Trump for another election loss and move on to Desantis in 2028.

Maybe they will, but a evidenced today. The House is not going to move on so easy with Trump allies trying to push their vendettas .

Trump still has a far reach, and his accolytes will still be pushing his agenda.

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/11/ ... house.html

Which we all know will die in the Senate. So fine. Let them play their little games.

luckyone wrote:

casinterest wrote:

jetwet1 wrote:

So they will just roll over and play dead to Trump ?

I don't see it, take the loss in 2024, blame Trump for another election loss and move on to Desantis in 2028.

Maybe they will, but a evidenced today. The House is not going to move on so easy with Trump allies trying to push their vendettas .

Trump still has a far reach, and his accolytes will still be pushing his agenda.

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/11/ ... house.html

Which we all know will die in the Senate. So fine. Let them play their little games.

I'm more concerned about the rampant obstruction, something like we will gleefully let the debt ceiling lapse, and stop paying government employees (like air traffic controllers - that shutdown was cool), while we're busy litigating the IP address history of Hunter's laptop in 2015, or which year he decided to pop in another RAM stick.

The little games could go on for 2 years, and while ridiculous and probably destined to tank their reputation among the normies, it would grind things to a halt, and I don't see Kevin McCarthy going to the Democrats to beg for votes.

There was some reporting today on PBS, that the House Republicans intend to replicate the Jan 6 committee, which kind of laid the gold standard for investigations. They will have an investigation phase of Hunter and possible connections of his business dealings to VP or President Biden. Then they will hold hearings, if & when they have enough evidence.

I think they know it will be a clown show if they just hold hearings and produce conspiracy theories. Which is all the evidence they have right now. The optics of that would be terrible after the Jan 6 hearings.

The other advantage is, if they turn up nothing in their investigation, they can quietly let it go. McCarthy reportedly has been strongly against filing immediate articles of impeachment, as the MAGA wing wants to do. It will be interesting to watch the struggle that will go on with the more radical members.

Avatar2go wrote:

There was some reporting today on PBS, that the House Republicans intend to replicate the Jan 6 committee, which kind of laid the gold standard for investigations. They will have an investigation phase of Hunter and possible connections of his business dealings to VP or President Biden. Then they will hold hearings, if & when they have enough evidence.

I think they know it will be a clown show if they just hold hearings and produce conspiracy theories. Which is all the evidence they have right now. The optics of that would be terrible after the Jan 6 hearings.

The other advantage is, if they turn up nothing in their investigation, they can quietly let it go. McCarthy reportedly has been strongly against filing immediate articles of impeachment, as the MAGA wing wants to do. It will be interesting to watch the struggle that will go on with the more radical members.

It's a clown show. They are investigating the son of Biden. They have no credibiliity. They were never honorable enought to stand up for the Jan 6 commission. McCarthy included. I am sure the MAGA cult will slobber all over it, but it is a big waste of time and energy, and will just show the rest of the US how unfit the GOP is to actually lead. Hunter is actually under multiple investigations already. It doesn't take an act of congress for someone not in government to be brought to justice.

Avatar2go wrote:

There was some reporting today on PBS, that the House Republicans intend to replicate the Jan 6 committee, which kind of laid the gold standard for investigations. They will have an investigation phase of Hunter and possible connections of his business dealings to VP or President Biden. Then they will hold hearings, if & when they have enough evidence.

I think they know it will be a clown show if they just hold hearings and produce conspiracy theories. Which is all the evidence they have right now. The optics of that would be terrible after the Jan 6 hearings.

The other advantage is, if they turn up nothing in their investigation, they can quietly let it go. McCarthy reportedly has been strongly against filing immediate articles of impeachment, as the MAGA wing wants to do. It will be interesting to watch the struggle that will go on with the more radical members.

The most likely scenario is a single digit majority. IF they pick up all the remaining elections (they won’t) they’ll have I think a majority of 15. That’s effectively no wiggle room. McCarthy better make damn sure before he brings that to a vote lest he look like a complete fool.

casinterest wrote:

It's a clown show. They are investigating the son of Biden. They have no credibiliity. They were never honorable enought to stand up for the Jan 6 commission. McCarthy included. I am sure the MAGA cult will slobber all over it, but it is a big waste of time and energy, and will just show the rest of the US how unfit the GOP is to actually lead. Hunter is actually under multiple investigations already. It doesn't take an act of congress for someone not in government to be brought to justice.

I think they got the message that the stolen election conspiracy theory didn't work. So will be trying to make a better case than that. Of course they will be stepping on the existing DoJ investigation, so won't get a lot of cooperation. But they will try to twist that around as criticism of Garland, whom the MAGA's also want to impeach.

It will be interesting to see if the balance of Republicans go along. PBS reported that many of them sat stone-faced during Pelosi's speech today and did not applaud, even though she was actually quite gracious. That may be an indicator of things to come.

I may be wrong, but I think the country is just tired of all the shenanigans. It's more embarrassing than anything else. Too many real problems to solve.

Avatar2go wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It's a clown show. They are investigating the son of Biden. They have no credibiliity. They were never honorable enought to stand up for the Jan 6 commission. McCarthy included. I am sure the MAGA cult will slobber all over it, but it is a big waste of time and energy, and will just show the rest of the US how unfit the GOP is to actually lead. Hunter is actually under multiple investigations already. It doesn't take an act of congress for someone not in government to be brought to justice.

I think they got the message that the stolen election conspiracy theory didn't work. So will be trying to make a better case than that. Of course they will be stepping on the existing DoJ investigation, so won't get a lot of cooperation. But they will try to twist that around as criticism of Garland, whom the MAGA's also want to impeach.

It will be interesting to see if the balance of Republicans go along. PBS reported that many of them sat stone-faced during Pelosi's speech today and did not applaud, even though she was actually quite gracious. That may be an indicator of things to come.

I may be wrong, but I think the country is just tired of all the shenanigans. It's more embarrassing than anything else. Too many real problems to solve.

It’s going to interesting to see if this motley crew can actually take the wheel…or are they the dog that caught the truck and will have no clue what to do once their in charge? McCarthy has been waiting for this ever since he tripped over his balls with the whole Hillary Clinton investigation comments — but he isn’t the craftiest guy around, and he has continued to score a few own goals along the way. Luckily for him a lot of the more prominent hard liners (MTH, teen-mom Boebert, Matt Gaetz, and a few others) actually aren’t all that bright either.

luckyone wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It's a clown show. They are investigating the son of Biden. They have no credibiliity. They were never honorable enought to stand up for the Jan 6 commission. McCarthy included. I am sure the MAGA cult will slobber all over it, but it is a big waste of time and energy, and will just show the rest of the US how unfit the GOP is to actually lead. Hunter is actually under multiple investigations already. It doesn't take an act of congress for someone not in government to be brought to justice.

I think they got the message that the stolen election conspiracy theory didn't work. So will be trying to make a better case than that. Of course they will be stepping on the existing DoJ investigation, so won't get a lot of cooperation. But they will try to twist that around as criticism of Garland, whom the MAGA's also want to impeach.

It will be interesting to see if the balance of Republicans go along. PBS reported that many of them sat stone-faced during Pelosi's speech today and did not applaud, even though she was actually quite gracious. That may be an indicator of things to come.

I may be wrong, but I think the country is just tired of all the shenanigans. It's more embarrassing than anything else. Too many real problems to solve.

It’s going to interesting to see if this motley crew can actually take the wheel…or are they the dog that caught the truck and will have no clue what to do once their in charge? McCarthy has been waiting for this ever since he tripped over his balls with the whole Hillary Clinton investigation comments — but he isn’t the craftiest guy around, and he has continued to score a few own goals along the way. Luckily for him a lot of the more prominent hard liners (MTH, teen-mom Boebert, Matt Gaetz, and a few others) actually aren’t all that bright either.

I think it will be interesting, also, to see who Democrats elect as House Minority Leader. I am guessing not a progressive, but someone farther to the left than Pelosi. Maxine Waters or Sheila Jackson Lee would really drive MAGAs nuts. I am thinking it might be Joaquin Castro.

seb146 wrote:

I think it will be interesting, also, to see who Democrats elect as House Minority Leader. I am guessing not a progressive, but someone farther to the left than Pelosi. Maxine Waters or Sheila Jackson Lee would really drive MAGAs nuts. I am thinking it might be Joaquin Castro.

PBS is reporting that the expected Democratic leadership will be Hakeem Jeffries as leader, Katherine Clark as #2 and Peter Aguilar as #3.

Kari Lake has announced she is gathering investigators to look into election irregularities, citing problems with some ballot printers in Maricopa County, and claiming that voters were disenfranchised.

A judge who reviewed the process on election day found that there was no evidence of inability to vote or disenfranchisement.

Also Republican election officials claimed that any issues were caused by Republican party campaigns, that advised voters not to use the lock boxes attached to each tabulation machine, in case the ballots could not be read. Some voters did walk out, based on that advice, but it's presumed they went to other polling places to vote.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/d ... rnors-race

Avatar2go wrote:

Kari Lake has announced she is gathering investigators to look into election irregularities, citing problems with some ballot printers in Maricopa County, and claiming that voters were disenfranchised.

A judge who reviewed the process on election day found that there was no evidence of inability to vote or disenfranchisement.

Also Republican election officials claimed that any issues were caused by Republican party campaigns, that advised voters not to use the lock boxes attached to each tabulation machine, in case the ballots could not be read. Some voters did walk out, based on that advice, but it's presumed they went to other polling places to vote.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/d ... rnors-race

These lying liars and the shitshow maelstrom they leave in their wake, I swear

The GOPers pushing for the most insane stuff are mostly dumb, so if they want to go for a serious investigation, they need smarter ones to do the job. These smarter ones aren't pushing these theories, so why would they oblige ? Under a powerful Trump, I get it, but now that Trump is weakened, it seems like the right time to stand up to him and his followers.

seb146 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

I think they got the message that the stolen election conspiracy theory didn't work. So will be trying to make a better case than that. Of course they will be stepping on the existing DoJ investigation, so won't get a lot of cooperation. But they will try to twist that around as criticism of Garland, whom the MAGA's also want to impeach.

It will be interesting to see if the balance of Republicans go along. PBS reported that many of them sat stone-faced during Pelosi's speech today and did not applaud, even though she was actually quite gracious. That may be an indicator of things to come.

I may be wrong, but I think the country is just tired of all the shenanigans. It's more embarrassing than anything else. Too many real problems to solve.

It’s going to interesting to see if this motley crew can actually take the wheel…or are they the dog that caught the truck and will have no clue what to do once their in charge? McCarthy has been waiting for this ever since he tripped over his balls with the whole Hillary Clinton investigation comments — but he isn’t the craftiest guy around, and he has continued to score a few own goals along the way. Luckily for him a lot of the more prominent hard liners (MTH, teen-mom Boebert, Matt Gaetz, and a few others) actually aren’t all that bright either.

I think it will be interesting, also, to see who Democrats elect as House Minority Leader. I am guessing not a progressive, but someone farther to the left than Pelosi. Maxine Waters or Sheila Jackson Lee would really drive MAGAs nuts. I am thinking it might be Joaquin Castro.

AoC would be perfect to troll them with. She is a lot brigther than most of the GOP, and would bring the mysoginy,racism , and ageism straight to the surface of the GOP attacks

Avatar2go wrote:

Kari Lake has announced she is gathering investigators to look into election irregularities, citing problems with some ballot printers in Maricopa County, and claiming that voters were disenfranchised.

A judge who reviewed the process on election day found that there was no evidence of inability to vote or disenfranchisement.

Also Republican election officials claimed that any issues were caused by Republican party campaigns, that advised voters not to use the lock boxes attached to each tabulation machine, in case the ballots could not be read. Some voters did walk out, based on that advice, but it's presumed they went to other polling places to vote.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/d ... rnors-race

They had perfectly good machines until Cyber Ninjas got ahold of them and destroyed them during the fraudit.

https://coppercourier.com/story/maricop ... equipment/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... on-audits/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/w ... it-results