Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[iam416]

Knives are out for Pete tonight, oof. But we're getting close to Iowa and some polls have shown him as the frontrunner there.

EDIT: Seen a number of people on my twitter feed posting how it's an open secret around the Senate that Amy Klobuchar can't stand Mayor Pete. No clue how true that may be. Thinks he's fake, thinks he's never done anything consequential, etc. Between her and Warren it's open season on Pete tonight. Bernie has been pretty impotent and Biden just smiles away.

I actually caught 15 minutes of that shitfest. But it was a good part over donors and shit. Heh. Hilarious. I also caught Yang answering an immigration question with a long lament on money, men and misogyny. That was top shelf. And then the Kluber-Mayor Pete experience crap. You can tell she really doesn't like him. You can also tell, almost immediately, he's way more polished/way better at this than her.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Insofar as these things matter I thought it was the best debate for Biden. He was the sharpest he's been so far and the others were mostly occupied with attacking each other. Only one more before Iowa

[froot loops]

Christianity Today just lost a faithful Evangelical reader.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Liney did you delete your post about Christianity Today? Was going to respond to it and it's gone.

Anyways, was just going to say that Trump's clearly upset about it. He says it's a "far left magazine" which he won't be reading again!!

First lol for the notion that Trump reads or has ever read "Christianity Today". Second lol for the notion that if it's a far left magazine, why was he ever reading it in the first place?

[Dr. Strangelove]

And to circle back to that article saying Mulvaney's close to being gone...there was also an article yesterday that Trump's been asking people if he should replace White House Counsel Pat Cippolone. Mulvaney and Cippolone have reportedly been in a turf war for months so it wouldn't shock me if both of those stories yesterday were leaks designed to injure the other.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Tuned into the debate last night by default - first one - but near the end of it. The PBS News Hour comes on as a repeat broadcast at 10pm and I tune in regularly but since PBS journalists were moderating the debate along with Politico, that was the News Hour.

Anyway, I thought Biden had his moments but he had a couple of at bats where he struck out. His response to Judy Woodruff's (PBS News Anchor) question on what gift or what apology would you give to their opponents was weak wile others hit at least singles. The thing that came through with all the candidates that I would hope becomes THE major push for the Ds is nominating a candidate that can beat Trump in November. To me, but I certainly have a bias, Sanders and Warren don't appear to have it and I hope folks who are still undecided are as unimpressed with them from both a character and policy standpoint as I am. I like Amy Klobuchar. She established she warrants a second look as a better candidate than Biden. While both have a good take on the progressive's crap, she is much better at articulating how unrealistic a progressive platform led by Sanders or Warren would play with voters. Liked her.

I've enjoyed the posts here from DSL, Froot and talent on the swing states with the probability that Trump will lose the popular vote by a wide margin but win the Electoral College making key states incredibly important. I don't watch it closely enough to offer a view on which states those are but at least come caucus time and then again on election night, I'll know what to watch for. Seems to me there are voters on the margins, those that really don't pay a lot of attention, who don't like Trump at all and will just vote not him but may have trouble deciding on a vote for someone like Klobuchar whereas, even though he may be a weaker presidential candidate that AK, he's got name recognition and some will say, yeah, I know him, he's OK and pull the lever for Biden.

[iam416]

I did catch a question on reparations. Mayor Pete had to answer it and did so predictably (investigate it). Biden was asked it and he just answered an immigration question and ignored it. It's going to be a very hard question for whatever D wins the nomination.

the probability that Trump will lose the popular vote by a wide margin but win the Electoral College making key states incredibly important.

If he loses the popular vote by a wide margin he won't win the EC. It has to be within 2ish points. If the popular vote is 3 or 4 points then it's going to translate into the swing states that he narrowly won in 2016.

And, to be clear, the EC is the rule we're all playing by. PDJT won't spend a second in California. Ds probably won't spend any time in Texas. The name of the game is electoral votes. IMO, saying you won the popular vote is nice, but it's like saying you had more first downs than your opponent as a way to make a 35-24 loss feel better. That's great, but we weren't playing by "most first downs."

[froot loops]

Talking about the popular vote is key when they keep on producing national polls. His approval rating hovers at 43 percent, it gives a skewed view of his chances because I doubt his approval rating is that in the key battleground states, which is what matters. On top of that, these state polls are rare and they don't normally sample for things education correctly in the same way the national polls do. National pools can spend a lot of money to get the sample size right. The educational attainment question is especially acute in this case, it hasn't been this way normally. Back in the day in my Political Statistics class it wasn't one of the demos that you focused on that I can remember.

It is all about Wisconsin and they are rabid Trump supporters. Unfortunately Biden doesn't have much for him in Wisconsin.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Permanently fixing the number of members of the House of Representatives at 435 had the effect of further exaggerating the relative importance of small states versus big ones in the Electoral College, which was already slanted to aid small states.

Every district in the country currently represents an average of 700,000 people (put aside for the moment that people like Madison felt districts of 30,000 were the ideal size). That number will only keep going up so long as we're fixed at 435. But what if the size of the House was recalibrated to lower that number down to 500,000?

New York State currently has 27 Reps. Wyoming has 1. (So their Electoral votes are 29 and 3 respectively).

If you gave New York a Rep for every 500,000 people, they would have 39 Reps. Wyoming would still only have 1. So that 1929 law, which locked us in at 435 until it's ever repealed, had the effect of giving additional advantage to small states in the EC. And that's exactly why the law was passed. Enough rural states and small population states (like Connecticut, Vermont, etc.) were disturbed by the masses of immigrants that came between 1880-1920 and were overwhelmingly migrating to big cities and large population states. So to prevent the electoral gap from ever getting too big, they decided to artificially cap the number of Representatives.

[Ghengis Jon]

Trump demands an immediate trial.

Pelosi should declare the impeachment vote a severe censure and not submit them to the Senate for trial. Further declare not to subject the nation to a trial where it is certain that the Trump Cult will slavishly ignore Trump's anti-American and anti-Constitutional behavior. Declare after much praying for Trump, decide to magnanimously grant him a second chance to abandon buffoonery, all in the name of mending fences.

Avoid the circus of the Mueller Report where Trumpian lickspittles ran around declaring exoneration and other bald faced lies. Let Trump enjoy his stain of impeachment without the benefit of his asslickers' "acquittal".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50863967

[froot loops]

Permanently fixing the number of members of the House of Representatives at 435 had the effect of further exaggerating the relative importance of small states versus big ones in the Electoral College, which was already slanted to aid small states.

Every district in the country currently represents an average of 700,000 people (put aside for the moment that people like Madison felt districts of 30,000 were the ideal size). That number will only keep going up so long as we're fixed at 435. But what if the size of the House was recalibrated to lower that number down to 500,000?

New York State currently has 27 Reps. Wyoming has 1. (So their Electoral votes are 29 and 3 respectively).

If you gave New York a Rep for every 500,000 people, they would have 39 Reps. Wyoming would still only have 1. So that 1929 law, which locked us in at 435 until it's ever repealed, had the effect of giving additional advantage to small states in the EC. And that's exactly why the law was passed. Enough rural states and small population states (like Connecticut, Vermont, etc.) were disturbed by the masses of immigrants that came between 1880-1920 and were overwhelmingly migrating to big cities and large population states. So to prevent the electoral gap from ever getting too big, they decided to artificially cap the number of Representatives.

Yeah, I've been harping on this for a long time, the ReapportionmentAct of 1929 should be revised. It doesn't even need an amendment or anything, just make a new law. I've never heard any politician actually talk about it. There is no reason that the number determined in 1929 should be forever.

[lineygoblue]

Liney did you delete your post about Christianity Today? Was going to respond to it and it's gone.

Anyways, was just going to say that Trump's clearly upset about it. He says it's a "far left magazine" which he won't be reading again!!

First lol for the notion that Trump reads or has ever read "Christianity Today". Second lol for the notion that if it's a far left magazine, why was he ever reading it in the first place?

I deleted it. I decided most of the post was irrelevant.

Upon further review this morning, the Graham family has not had any connection to "Christianity Today" in many years. It originated with support from Billy Graham, but he parted ways with them a long time ago. Franklin Graham spoke out against their editorial this morning as well.

There are loads of liberals within Protestant denominations. The United Church of Christ, the United Methodists, and the Episcopal Church, just to name a few, are strongly liberal, even though at times they identify themselves as "evangelical".

Then you have a large number of the predominantly black churches, (AME, COGIC, etc) that are very political, and always endorse Democrats.

"Christianity Today" claims all of those under their umbrella.

[Hannibal]

I have never read "Christianity Today", but I can say from observing the spread of the cancer of Cultural Marxism that no institution is immune from becoming infected with the Leftist poz. So the idea of a Christian institution being heavily Left leaning isn't absurd on its face.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Too bad that Jesus himself so often sounds more like a Marxist than a Capitalist, talking all that nonsense about grace and charity and everyone being equal in the eyes of the Lord.

[Hannibal]

A consensus appears to have formed that The Rise of Skywalker is an aborted fetus. And all of the leaks about facepalm-inducing, cringeworthy plot details turned out to be completely true.

It's at least 10 years too late, but it looks like the Sci-Fi fans of the world aren't falling for the JJ Abrams Mystery Box anymore.