Printable View
I have been questioning the reliability of polls since 2016. So I never know what to make of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I know there is one generic poll that asks the question, who would you rather vote for, a Democrat or a Republican and supposedly that one stayed pretty consistent all year long with the Democrats winning. They do a better job of explaining it in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8Km_Vyhvww
That inflation, which is a worldwide problem, probably was not caused by Joe Biden nor made much worse by his inaction since monetary policy is the best tool to deal with it and it seems to be experienced in similar magnitude by most developed countries. That ending women's right to an abortion will cause so much misery for women, including death for some women seeking abortions, and trauma and loss of privacy for others, that if people thought this was the bigger concern it's not surprising at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
Further, that some people probably consider a threat to end our tradition of conceding elections when you've lost and peacefully transferring power to be more concerning than the fact that Joe Biden hasn't been able to keep prices in check, like most of the developed world.
That is, if fiscal policy is a useful tool to solve the problem and there were steps he could have taken to prevent prices from increasing. Otherwise it gives the impression he can do things like manipulate gas prices when they are strongly determined by supply and demand (as well as pricing power by market participants with outsized market share), which legislation would only have small effects on. As for my point in the parenthetical, if he used regulatory agencies to influence prices of private companies all of the complaints would have come from the right.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
Sometimes, this both sides sort of stuff just doesn't make sense. I'm sure Biden didn't handle it perfectly but that concession only leads to the vaguest recommendations for how he should have handled it. That is a far cry from the active harm of forcing women to give birth to their rapist's child or encouraging people to engage in violence because their "liberty" is at stake or based on incendiary claims of voter fraud that did actually lead to an attempted insurrection. These are not problems of equal significance.
Thanks Blackchubby, I enjoyed listening to reasonable people, even if there is a warning in there about the disruption that some may want to go for and what, to me, is the dismal prospect of Joe Biden running again. If ever there was a time for change, for the new generation to take over, it is now. I say that even though in the UK we have had some of the youngest Prime Minsters and senior Ministers and they have failed, though I think we have Brexit to thank for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
Care to nominate some potential candidates? I was surprised to hear Youngkin mentioned, but I know next to nothing about him, other than the insult he received from a graceless, and not very decent Trumpty Dumpty.
Unless the increase in prices is preventing someone from being able to meet their basic economic needs it strikes me as weird that people would consider it more concerning than a ban on abortion, a possible future ban on gay marriage, public statements that not only damage our institutions but threaten the lives of people running for office by a party that also promoted rampant public health misinformation. Voting for an election denier or an antivaxxer should be about as appealing as voting for a klansman, because there's a decent chance they have many of the same views without the clothing. BTW it doesn't end there. Trump is directing racist insults toward Mcconnell's wife on a near weekly basis. This is a party of nihilists who think promoting hatred is acceptable. Anyhow, I'm sorry to anyone who's disappointed by the Democrats' surprise victory in the Senate.
Here's what Robert Reich had to say about inflation.
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...high-inflation
[QUOTE=broncofan;2063362 Voting for an election denier or an antivaxxer should be about as appealing as voting for a klansman, because there's a decent chance they have many of the same views without the clothing. BTW it doesn't end there. Trump is directing racist insults toward Mcconnell's wife on a near weekly basis. This is a party of nihilists who think promoting hatred is acceptable. Anyhow, I'm sorry to anyone who's disappointed by the Democrats' surprise victory in the Senate.
Here's what Robert Reich had to say about inflation.
/QUOTE]
Do you think even Republican voters are now weary of the crude, childish name calling Trump uses? Is there not a point when yesterday's 'shtick' is just that, and voters want something different, like a policy that makes sense of inflation, immigration, homelessness? After all the rage, the anger, the abuse, what have the Republicans delivered? An abortion policy the people don't want (including Republicans). Attacks on LGBTQ+ that produce nothing. Even De Santis may have to tone down his own 'shtick' if he wants votes outside the 'Darkness State' -?
Basically, this: has the tide turned?
When it comes to the Democrats, here are some possible candidates. Whoever it is, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea if the candidate was a governor. Someone who has experience running an executive branch of government. The candidate should also be in the age range of 45-70.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Governor Gavin Newsome (CA). He is 55 and been the governor of California since 2019. From what I can tell, he is popular with the progressive wing of the party and I can see him going toe to toe with Ron De Santis or Trump because he is a little bit of a prick and I think that is what you need sometimes in politics. The only downside is, I don't see how would do in the middle of parts of the country in a general election.
Governor Gretchen Whitmer (MI). If the Democrats are going to stay in the White House in 2024 and beyond, they're going to need the win the state of Michigan. She has been the governor since 2019 and she won her reelection campaign defeating a MAGA Republican. The plus side is she is a woman. The downside is, she is a white woman and I can already see some issues a rising if she has to face Kamala Harris in the primaries.
Governor Phil Murphy (NJ). He is 65 and although he narrowly won reelection last year, he seems to have rebounded and doing a good job in 68. The only downside he is not well known outside of the tri-state area (New York, NJ, and Connecticut) and the fact that he is from the east coast may cost him votes in the middle of the country. The same goes for the Governor Ned Lamont (CT), who did a great job running his state during the pandemic and the recovery process.
Those are just a few candidates I can think of.
But were they so wrong? These guys don't seem to think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/t...-a-good-night/
I think a lot of the expectations weren't based so much on the polls, but on historical experience at mid-terms, factoring in the economy and the President's approval rating.
Opinion polls are always subject to error margins of a few per cent, and the result is a reminder that they can go in both directions.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...lection-polls/
The macroeconomics of inflation is straightforward. Prices rise because demand in the economy exceeds supply. In this case, it's been caused mainly by a global reduction in supply, but that can't be fixed any time soon. So the only solution is to slow the economy significantly - which is normally done by jacking up interest rates but can also be done by fiscal policy (raising taxes or cutting spending). Often this leads to a recession - that is how the last high inflation period was ended in the 1980s.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Anyone who complains about inflation but doesn't want to accept the necessary cure isn't serious. They are engaging in magical thinking.
I'm looking at the Inflation Reduction Act and there are a few tax hikes but "increased enforcement" would probably not be enough . Looking at all the handwringing I kind of wish Biden had held a summit on the kinds of aggressive tax increases we'd need to curb inflation. I can't imagine Republicans would ever vote for increases in taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Anyhow, the interest rate on 30 year fixed residential mortgages went from 3% to 7%. That will certainly keep lots of people from buying homes. Commercial rates are up well over 2%. You could get a commercial loan of 10 year term 25 year amortization for under 4% a year ago. Now it's over 6%, which is a huge difference. Our entire economy runs on credit.
In other news I heard Marjorie Taylor Greene wants to have a civil war in the Republican party. I can't understand why people don't think these are trustworthy stewards of the public interest.
[QUOTE=Stavros;2063363]I think Republicans are weary of Trump not winning. First him in the 2020 election and now a lot of his candidates in the mid-terms. I wonder if they bothered to ask themselves what they stand to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan;2063362 Voting for an election denier or an antivaxxer should be about as appealing as voting for a klansman, because there's a decent chance they have many of the same views without the clothing. BTW it doesn't end there. Trump is directing racist insults toward Mcconnell's wife on a near weekly basis. This is a party of nihilists who think promoting hatred is acceptable. Anyhow, I'm sorry to anyone who's disappointed by the Democrats' surprise victory in the Senate.
Here's what Robert Reich had to say about inflation.
/QUOTE
Like what Anton Chigurh told that hapless gas station attendant maybe trump would tell them they stand to win everything. You can fearmonger about illegal immigrants, you can fearmonger about people in the gay community trying to indoctrinate your children, you can block women from getting healthcare, and if you want to say something racist just say it and if anyone complains say "people are offended by everything these days. What's racist about that? If you think that's racist you're the real racist." When a synagogue gets vandalized you can say "whatcha doin Rabbi" to imply the Rabbi did it, and when people call you antisemitic post the story of some mentally ill teen who did something like that years ago for attention. Basically they get the opportunity to be class acts and patriots. But can they win all that?
[QUOTE=broncofan;2063372]Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
The Trumpists are obviously never going to accept any responsibility and change their ways. To them the only problem can be other Republicans not being Trumpy enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I'm sceptical that this election will shock Republicans into changing their ways. They didn't do so after losing the House, Senate and Presidency. They didn't do so after January 16. Why would they do so after an election in which they will probably regain the House.
The reason most Republican politicians have engaged in or tolerated nastiness is that their party base want this. I don't think that has changed. Also, the impulse to ignore or deny any unwelcome information, rather than learning from it is now deeply embedded.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ebacle/672108/
Borrowers did benefit from unusually low interest rates over the previous 14 years. If the economy can't function without ultra-cheap credit then it really is in trouble. I know there will be collateral damage, but one benefit of higher interest rates is that it will shake out some the spivs who have only made fortunes due to easy credit, low interest rates and inflated asset prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
[QUOTE=Stavros;2063363]Yes i do think that some Republican Voters are weary of some of the crude,childish name calling Donald Trump,and other Republican Voters are not because they'll still vote for him despite all of the despicable things he has said and done.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan;2063362 Voting for an election denier or an antivaxxer should be about as appealing as voting for a klansman, because there's a decent chance they have many of the same views without the clothing. BTW it doesn't end there. Trump is directing racist insults toward Mcconnell's wife on a near weekly basis. This is a party of nihilists who think promoting hatred is acceptable. Anyhow, I'm sorry to anyone who's disappointed by the Democrats' surprise victory in the Senate.
Here's what Robert Reich had to say about inflation.
/QUOTE
Intriguing - I have heard of Newsom and Whitmer, but not the others. The most obvious question arises from your omission. Pardon the expression, butQuote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
- Has Kamala Blown It?
Biden will run again (unless health issues prevent it). You’re wasting your time speculating about who would replace him. The administration thinks they have a record of accomplishments to run on (Inflation Reduction Act, etc). Biden’s approval among Democrats (41%) is a few points lower than similar timeframe for Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, but is probably within the statistical margin of error. Both of those presidents had much worse results in their mid-term elections than Biden, and both won second terms. It was undoubtably going to be Biden before, and with Trump now running again, it’s certain.
A lot can happen between now and 2024, whether it is the economy, social or foreign policy, and I do think Blackchubby38 has at least given some thought to contenders. A lot may also depend on how the Republicans handle the House, with a lot of speculation that they will be as disruptive as they can, block as much as they can, and set up Committees to look into a hundred and one spotted dicks on stilts to 'expose' the Democrats. And so on. Or they may spend a lot of time baiting and fighting each other.
Right now, Biden looks like he has those 'successes' to bank, but success in politics is temporary. I cannot say much more because I don't know more than what I see in the media, and surely the most depressing thing about all this is the way in which Trump continues to define, or try to define the contours of political debate, even if most of the time it is all about HIM rather than any of the policies that are going to Make America Glorious Again! But it doesn't look like he is going to see the inside of a prison any time soon, if ever.
https://twitter.com/HouseGOP/status/...Vihl7mqNLL86yg
Can't imagine why I don't think Republicans would have had a good response to inflation. Maybe because they aren't actually focused on governance at all. If the response to inflation is contractionary policy (fiscal and monetary) do we think Trump would intentionally decrease demand and risk a recession to prevent inflation? Or do we think he'd look for some scapegoat or just ignore it or blame China or try to provoke riots?
Trump will need someone to explain to him what Inflation is. As far as I can make out, Trump has been in debt, and lived off other people's money for most of his adult life. In reality I don't think he knows how to read accounts, knows next to nothing about the difference between cash flow and net profit, and relies on other people to do the work and tell him how much money he has. He is so 'smart' he didn't know his Chief Financial Officer was robbing and scamming him for 40 years, and is still paying the man after he pleaded Guilty to tax fraud in a Court of Law! Weisselberg even claims Eric Trump may decide to give him his annual bonus. The sophistry being used in the Court in New York may establish an entirely new language designed to prove that the top is the bottom and the bottom is the top, and of course, Trump, the Saint of Trump Towers, knew nothing, like Manuel in Fawlty Towers, only Manuel was from Barcelona.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Make America Solvent Again!
‘I voted Democrat for the first time’: Guardian readers on the US midterm
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ts-republicans
How would you describe Donald Trump?
These 17 Swing Voters
Have a Very Clear Message
for Donald Trump
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...sultPosition=8
Three questions for you, Blackchubby38 as you are a New York resident.
1) has the House flipped because Democrats lost in New York? This FT article offers a short insight into the problems the party has in the State, and in NYC.
New York’s Democrats rue losses that cost their party the House | Financial Times (ft.com)
2) Who is Hakeem Jeffries?
3) Apparently anyone nominated can be Speaker of the House -Donald Trump, George Clooney, Liz Cheney., Pinocchio. Any thoughts on this most important job?
1. I can't see the article that you posted. But is it the same explanation as this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Why the Democrats Just Lost the House
www.nytimes.com/2022/11/16/opinion/house-democrats-new-york.html?searchResultPosition=2
2. I only know who Hakeem Jeffries is by name only. But from my understanding, he has been the heir apparent for the Speaker of the House position for awhile now.
3. I never gave it much thought. I only know what a Speaker of the House does/did if I'm a reading a book about history and if they played a certain role in the events of the day.
Not addressed to me but I’ll answer anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Yes, losing some seats in California and New York may have made the difference in shifting the balance of power. But focusing on those handful of seats misses the larger picture, which is the problem of gerrymandering in general, nation-wide.
Hakeem Jeffries is a centrist, also have heard him labeled as a “corporate Democrat” or conservative Democrat. Based on that, it’s probable that he will block progressive ideas like universal health care. “Centrist” implies someone who can reach out to both sides of an issue, but in reality they often work in opposition to party members who are further left. I’m not in favor of Jeffries but it’s clear that they need younger people in leadership positions. Democrats usually appoint leadership based on seniority and chain of succession, and when Steny Hoyer (next in line, but almost as old as Pelosi) stepped aside, it opened the door for Jefferies who is apparently “next”. Republicans do not have the same adherence to seniority that Democrats have. But knowing that’s how Democrats generally do it, it makes predictions about future leadership pretty easy. Just look at who is #2 or #3.
As far as I know, there has never been a Speaker of the House who was not a sitting member of Congress, even though the rules allow it. But I may be mistaken.
Thank you for your thoughts on this. I have read about 'machine politicians' in the Democrats before, but I guess a young elected official has to do the graft before getting the draft, unless his name is Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Warm
I understand the 'centrist' argument, Blair used it to win Labour four elections in the UK, but after the 'centre ground' of British politics had been moved to the right in 1979 and the years thereafter.
It was a basic concept of Keith Joseph, the Conservative who converted Margaret Thatcher to his version of Free Marker economics. Joseph argued that since 1945 the 'ratchet' of politics had been moved from an economy led by markets to one led by the State, most notably in the growth of Welfare and State bureaucracy, but also, critically, in the State's intervention in the economy. The centre ground remained committed to this 'Keynesian consensus' which Joseph argued was the cause of the UK's ills and that radical change was needed, not just to end State intervention in the economy -which Thatcher did through privatisation of the Utilities, withdrawing state funds from British Leyland, in effect shutting down what remained of our coal industry- but also to move the ratchet of British politics to the right, so the Centre Ground would make the inheritance of Thatcher hard to break, which is what has happened.
As for the US, I don't understand how a country as rich as yours resists the social justice of a single-payer health care service, preferring to maintain it as a business instead, and that is just one policy though I have to assume the Affordable Care Act was as radical as the US could make it. AOC and her chums are on the fringes of politics, not at the centre.
For some historical context, I went back and looked at two midterm elections: 1994 and 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_United_States_elections
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_elections
Both Clinton and Obama were able to accomplish some major policy goals in their first two years in office respectively, with only the latter having to deal with any issues when it came to the economy. But the Democratic Party still went on to suffer significant losses in the midterm elections. So its no wonder a majority of people expected there to be a red wave this year.
I suspect that there was a voter backlash to the January 6th attack on the US capital building. I took that extremely seriously, and I think other people did too, including Republican voters who aren’t all-in on Trump. I won’t be surprised if it’s a factor in 2024 and beyond.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
I think greed explains it. The thinking is “why should the government operate an industry as non-profit, when me and my rich buddies could be making money off it?” It could be health care, the postal system, public schools, whatever. Mega-donors drive the political agenda and protect big industries like pharmaceuticals, etc. For the rich, investing campaign donations in politicians who protect their financial interests is just good business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
There’s a blog called electoral-vote dot com, which covers polling, elections, relevant historical references, and political news of the day. I believe the bloggers are historians, who seem to be right about a lot of things, and provide informative overviews on US political topics. For example, if there’s some political maneuvering in Congress and you want some background on what obscure rules they’re following, that’s a good website to read. The website design looks like “Web 1.0” but it’s worth a visit for the content.
I would suggest that in the US there is a long tradition of the Federal Govt not doing things, because they would have the tax citizens to achieve it. Washington didn't want to transform the Continental Army into a Federal Standing Army for this reason, though he failed to make that happen. Ironic I suppose, given that defence would then have been the job of 'a well armed militia'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Warm
Again, the US does not have a national carrier in airlines or shipping, it doesn't have a State or Federal Radio or TV station which in Europe was and sometimes is owned and run by the State, so I see the political inheritance there. It is just that health is something that affected everyone from 'the cradle to the grave', and because it seems to some of us in the UK that your health care business falls far short of what we have even when our NHS is in crisis, as it has been for so long it is medically not a crisis but a chronic condition.
That said, while the NHS is state run, it is not a vertically-integrated system. The private sector provides all the ancillary aspects of hospitals, clinics and GP surgeries -from the carpet and the chairs, to the ECG machines and X-Ray equipment, to the drugs. The private sector in the UK has done very well out of the NHS, but I don't see how else this could have worked.
On balance I think a mix of the UK and German systems works best.
[QUOTE=Luke Warm;2063843
Hakeem Jeffries is a centrist, also have heard him labeled as a “corporate Democrat” or conservative Democrat. Based on that, it’s probable that he will block progressive ideas like universal health care. “Centrist” implies someone who can reach out to both sides of an issue, but in reality they often work in opposition to party members who are further left. I’m not in favor of Jeffries but it’s clear that they need younger people in leadership positions. Democrats usually appoint leadership based on seniority and chain of succession, and when Steny Hoyer (next in line, but almost as old as Pelosi) stepped aside, it opened the door for Jefferies who is apparently “next”. Republicans do not have the same adherence to seniority that Democrats have. But knowing that’s how Democrats generally do it, it makes predictions about future leadership pretty easy. Just look at who is #2 or #3.
[/QUOTE]
More on this man Hakeen Jeffries, who seems to be an uncritical supporter of the violent State of Israel, receiving a lot of campaign finance from a group called Pro-Israel America. I wonder if he is about to register some reservations about the inclusion in Netanyahu's Govt of Itamar Ben-Gvir, one of a long line of nasty Fascists whose lineage reaches all the way back to Avraham Stern, who was trained in one of the camps for terrorists established by Mussolini just by Civitavecchia, a tradition maintained by Jabotinsky, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Ariel Sharon. Maybe Jeffries should ask himself if such a man even knows the meaning of the word peace, as there is no hope of him ever using the word compromise in a sentence.
Hakeem Jeffries’ likely elevation set to please US pro-Israel groups | US politics | The Guardian
Israel has passed a law which means foreigners who fall in love with a Palestinian living on the West Bank must inform Israel's Ministry of Defence and if, heaven forbid, they get married, the foreigner must leave for a 26-month 'cooling off' period, because its hot stuff, this love and marriage thing, Palestinian-style. One wonders if Hakeem Jeffries will endorse this lunacy and even present a bill in the House requiring non-Americans who live in Florida but fall in love with someone in Illinois to inform the Pentagon. You just never know, and it don't matter if it is just, because Israel does it, and Hakeem must be careful to protect his sponsors.
Israeli rules say West Bank visitors must declare love interest - BBC News
What does it take to assess Israel as a modern State without all the baggage Netanyahu dumps on people before and after they express an opinion? Jeffries according to the link above, supported Obama and the JCOP with Iran, so maybe he can think for himself. He needs to ask why it is that Democrats support in Israel people with political ideas he would condemn in the USA, parties he would campaign against. Even an insolent little prick like Satloff can't stand Ben-Gvir, that's how low the bar has fallen in Israel.
And where, in all this, is Yitzhak Rabin and the Peace Treaty? Was it that bad? Look at what has happened since Sharon, Netanyahu and their violent settler buddies snuffed out that light -has there been even a remote chance of peace or diplomacy having any effect that Palestinians can use to live free lives? When did you last read of a plan to end Israel's illegal siege of the Gaza District?
I don't know much about the man, but he inspires zero confidence in me that he will be an improvement on Nancy Pelosi.
And with Biden grovelling before a mass murdering shit like MbS, one sighs again at the folly of US relations with the Middle East, two drunks driving a truck of explosives over a rocky road.
Apparently the US federal government was pretty minimal until after the civil war. I don’t recall, but I don’t think we even had federal taxes until then (forgive me for not Googling it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
The left has wanted to have publicly funded health care since at least the 1940s and FDR’s “New Deal” legislation, but for reasons I don’t know, they could not get it done at that time. Obamacare has some critical drawbacks and limitations but it was a bit of a miracle that at least something was passed, because it had been on the progressive wish-list for so long.
Regarding US policy towards Israel, the vast majority of US voters are focused on domestic issues, especially regarding the economy. I wonder how many Americans even know who Netenyahu is… I’d guess maybe 10%.
Yes, but then a lot of Americans don't know much about their own country which is why on so many domestic issues you will hear people say things that would otherwise be incredible. The anti-vaxx movement has exposed the ignorance of Americans of their own history with regard to immunology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Warm
The point about Israel is that it is not even a special case, if the contradiction between 'American values' and Foreign Policy is the matter. Russia is condemned for its annexation of Ukrainian territory, whereas Israel can annex the 'Golan Heights' which are part of Syria, and no ultimatum or threats, or sanctions follow. Turkey has been in illegal occupation of northern Cyprus since 1974 so where is the package of sanctions? Or the in-out attitude to northern Syria where it regularly attacks what it says are Kurdish 'separatists' without offering any proof, or an explanation of what it is that Kurds want -the people the US was supposed to be sponsoring for an Independent State after 1918 but which it did not follow through because the US left the League of Nations.
It may be realpolitik for the US to have good relations with Saudi Arabia, but in return they get nothing, as the price of oil per barrel is not something SA always changes if it can to support the US. Mohammed bin Salman has a personal relationship with Jared Kushner and is personally hostile to Democrats and Biden in particular. It tickles his ego to see an American President in effect begging Saudi Arabia, and to know he will screw the US as often as he can. As for the support SA gave to the 9/11 murderers, the weekly executions, Jamal Khashoggi and Saudi Arabia's less than hostile attitude to Russia, it really doesn't care what the US thinks. Neither for that matter does Israel, which is also 'soft' on Russia.
Maybe you should be asking what it is you get for the billions of $$$ you spend overseas. Looks like often it is a slap in the face.
It's even more recent than that. Federal income tax in the US only started in 1913, and was still very low until WWII. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income..._United_StatesQuote:
Originally Posted by Luke Warm
Most countries had fairly limited government until after the Great Depression and WWII. I guess those events made people realise there were merits in more active government rather than leaving people to their own devices. The US still has smaller government than other developed countries, but despite the best efforts of the right they have not been able to reverse the historical increase.
That was my point. Most of the media focussed too much on these historical precedents and discounted the actual data from independent polls that pointed to a close election.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income..._United_States
I don't generally subscribe to arguments about systematic bias in the mainstream media, but I think one fault they have is the tendency to coalesce around a prevailing narrative. This can lead them to over-extrapolate the bits of data that fit the narrative and discount conflicting data. We'll never know, but it's possible the excessive pessimism about Democrat prospects discouraged some of their potential voters from voting.
Despite this, half the voters still voted Republican (according to reports, they got slightly more votes overall than the Democrats). I know this was better than expected given the general trend in mid-terms and high inflation, but I'm not convinced it's a big enough backlash to cause them to change their ways. Most of them are still more scared of Trump than they are of the voters - just look at their reaction to the infamous anti-semite dinner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Warm
According to this article, Republicans flipped 18 House seats that voted for Biden in 2020 (mainly in New York and California), while Democrats flipped only 5 seats that voted for Trump last time.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/gops-h...han-we-thought
It seems that demonising mail-in voting was not such a good idea for Republicans after all, but guess who stands in the way?
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/1...oting-00072956