2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sweet Square said:
So someone who committed millions in fraud shouldn't go to jail ? And should have more voting rights than someone who punched and robbed a store clerk ?
Click to expand...

I just shared what he said. Clearly by your questions it isnt that simple but some people seem to think it is
 
Cassidy said:
I just shared what he said. Clearly by your questions it isnt that simple but some people seem to think it is
Click to expand...
It's simply if every offender has the right to vote, no ? It only becomes complicated when we use Booker reasoning of well non violent offenders get the vote but of course not someone like the Boston bomber. As Sanders says you can't pick and chose who takes part in democracy.

And as annoying as yes or no questions are, voting rights for prisoners is one of them. Either you believe prisoners deserve the right to vote or you don't. Booker clearly doesn't but is too worried for whatever reason to say it.
 
Sweet Square said:
It's simply if every offender has the right to vote, no ? It only becomes complicated when we use Booker reasoning of well non violent offenders get the vote but of course not someone like the Boston bomber. As Sanders says you can't pick and chose who takes part in democracy.

And as annoying as yes or no questions are, voting rights for prisoners is one of them. Either you believe prisoners deserve the right to vote or you don't. Booker clearly doesn't but is too worried for whatever reason to say it.
Click to expand...

Or you have a different view which is allowed normally in life. But as I already said in politics no one is actually interested in your actual view but falling into an either or category

I actually disagree with Bookers view btw. But Im not one to say he cant have one or should just pick a side. Its thats his view then its his view
 
Sweet Square said:
As Sanders says you can't pick and chose who takes part in democracy.
Click to expand...
I dunno... I mean humans have put people on the moon... They have created test tube babies... They have done some pretty remarkable things

I don't think it would be impossible to create a rule that people whose conviction was over a certain duration of example couldnt vote

Or that people convicted of certain crimes ... After all it's a prison I guess they could control who gets the ballot pretty easily and oversea the voting

So yeah you may decide you don't want to do that... But 100% you can pick and choose who takes part if you want to and pass a law to that effect because that's how democracy works
 
sun_tzu said:
I dunno... I mean humans have put people on the moon... They have created test tube babies... They have done some pretty remarkable things

I don't think it would be impossible to create a rule that people whose conviction was over a certain duration of example couldnt vote

Or that people convicted of certain crimes ... After all it's a prison I guess they could control who gets the ballot pretty easily and oversea the voting

So yeah you may decide you don't want to do that... But 100% you can pick and choose who takes part if you want to and pass a law to that effect because that's how democracy works
Click to expand...

112 words to say "I disagree".
 
Eboue said:
hes running for president. what the feck. of course he has to pick a side.
Click to expand...

Not within made up parameters. Thats everything thats wrong with politics IMO
 
Cassidy said:
Or you have a different view which is allowed normally in life. But as I already said in politics no one is actually interested in your actual view but falling into an either or category
Click to expand...
No one is saying he can't have that view. The reason in this case why people want politicians to fall into an either or category is because 1)Brooker in the middle stance doesn't make any sense and 2) Voting is universal right either you believe everyone should have the vote or you don't, the same goes for the voting rights of prisoners.

But there plenty of political topics that don't fall into either or category - Taxes, Housing Healthcare(Although it really should be either or category), policing etc.

Cassidy said:
I actually disagree with Bookers view btw. But Im not one to say he cant have one or should just pick a side. Its thats his view then its his view
Click to expand...
Oh yeah I wasn't trying to say you agree with Booker, if it came across like that my bad. But just to say again the reason Booker looks like he being forced into picking a side in the debate around voting rights for prisoners is because his current stance makes no sense. And also as @Eboue has said Booker is running for president, if he wanted to not be pressured on his view then he should of stayed out of politics.


sun_tzu said:
I dunno... I mean humans have put people on the moon... They have created test tube babies... They have done some pretty remarkable things

I don't think it would be impossible to create a rule that people whose conviction was over a certain duration of example couldnt vote

Or that people convicted of certain crimes ... After all it's a prison I guess they could control who gets the ballot pretty easily and oversea the voting

So yeah you may decide you don't want to do that... But 100% you can pick and choose who takes part if you want to and pass a law to that effect because that's how democracy works
Click to expand...

Your right in that it's not like going faster than the speed of light, picking and choosing who takes part in democracy is something we can do in a democracy and is something we have already done, be it working class white men, women, people of colour etc.

And while maybe there is some perfect balance to be found in the future for prisoner voting rights(Although I really struggle to think of any). One of the many great things about universalism is the difficulty it causes for the most malicious ill-intentioned people(The Republican Party)to roll back rights.

Once you've drawn a line that says this type of prisoner doesn't get to vote then you've left the argument open for again the most malicious ill-intentioned people to argue the line should be lower and should cover more prisoners.
 
Sweet Square said:
No one is saying he can't have that view. The reason in this case why people want politicians to fall into an either or category is because 1)Brooker in the middle stance doesn't make any sense and 2) Voting is universal right either you believe everyone should have the vote or you don't, the same goes for the voting rights of prisoners.

But there plenty of political topics that don't fall into either or category - Taxes, Housing Healthcare(Although it really should be either or category), policing etc.


Oh yeah I wasn't trying to say you agree with Booker, if it came across like that my bad. But just to say again the reason Booker looks like he being forced into picking a side in the debate around voting rights for prisoners is because his current stance makes no sense. And also as @Eboue has said Booker is running for president, if he wanted to not be pressured on his view then he should of stayed out of politics.




Your right in that it's not like going faster than the speed of light, picking and choosing who takes part in democracy is something we can do in a democracy and is something we have already done, be it working class white men, women, people of colour etc.

And while maybe there is some perfect balance to be found in the future for prisoner voting rights(Although I really struggle to think of any). One of the many great things about universalism is the difficulty it causes for the most malicious ill-intentioned people(The Republican Party)to roll back rights.

Once you've drawn a line that says this type of prisoner doesn't get to vote then you've left the argument open for again the most malicious ill-intentioned people to argue the line should be lower and should cover more prisoners.
Click to expand...

Just because you believe it to be either or doesnt mean it is. Maybe he disagrees
 
Anyway.



Here's the middle class people building america

images
 
I assume Comcast is part of the middle class then.

The DNC was so desperate to get a
recognized name to prevent a Bernie presidency, they pushed Biden who was never interested.

Now he is floundering.

I'm still curious about Warren's refusal to embrace Medicare For All.
The debates may clarify her position.
 
Red Dreams said:
I assume Comcast is part of the middle class then.

The DNC was so desperate to get a
recognized name to prevent a Bernie presidency, they pushed Biden who was never interested.

Now he is floundering.

I'm still curious about Warren's refusal to embrace Medicare For All.
The debates may clarify her position.
Click to expand...

Haven't seen this. What was said ?
 
Red Dreams said:
https://www.apnews.com/a5b573a044f844eabf731f6b2c22eaca

she backed the ambitious proposal as an ultimate goal. But she cautioned that “we’re not ready for that as a country,” urging “baby steps” that keep private health insurance in place.

Think she may be for public option.
Click to expand...

That's probably the most realistic option imo, since the odds of an actual medicare for all bill passing in this political climate are astronomically small.
 
Raoul said:
That's probably the most realistic option imo, since the odds of an actual medicare for all bill passing in this political climate are astronomically small.
Click to expand...

Bernie has proposed lowering the age for eligibility to 50 as a first step.
But even a Public Option wont pass the Senate unless the filibuster is removed.

The key though is the majority of All voters want medicare For All.

That is what will drive the message this cycle. And very closely. Climate change.
 
Red Dreams said:
Bernie has proposed lowering the age for eligibility to 50 as a first step.
But even a Public Option wont pass the Senate unless the filibuster is removed.

The key though is the majority of All voters want medicare For All.

That is what will drive the message this cycle. And very closely. Climate change.
Click to expand...

Let's see what happens in 2020. If the Dems somehow win back the Senate alongside a progressive President then they may have a chance at moving something. If that happens, they will have to move very quickly instead of mucking about for the first year or two like Obama did only to allow the opposition to retake the house.
 
Raoul said:
Let's see what happens in 2020. If the Dems somehow win back the Senate alongside a progressive President then they may have a chance at moving something. If that happens, they will have to move very quickly instead of mucking about for the first year or two like Obama did only to allow the opposition to retake the house.
Click to expand...

This time round people have opened their eyes to what is at stake for Health Care.
So it will be easier definitely.
All those votes to gut pre-existing conditions will come back to haunt the Republicans.
 
Raoul said:
Handbags between Silver and Rasmussen

Click to expand...


Unsurprising that it's coming from the same outlet that exaggerates trumps support.

Red Dreams said:
This time round people have opened their eyes to what is at stake for Health Care.
So it will be easier definitely.
All those votes to gut pre-existing conditions will come back to haunt the Republicans.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I doubt it. Most republican voters are too ignorant to remember that. Didn't they actually have campaign ads saying they would protect coverage for pre existing conditions? Their support comes from opposition to minorities, foreigners and liberals. I doubt their health care position matters much to their voters.
 
Biden's polling starting to take a big hit in California as I expected (even though this is still dubious with their BS "likely" arbitrary disclaimer)

At this rate he might end up sinking after a few debates.


ljVUDSR.jpg

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7wx193w5
 
nimic said:
"Likely" isn't entirely arbitrary, it's based on previous voting patterns. And they're patterns because they usually hold up.
Click to expand...

They don't hold though which was the biggest problem in the conventional polling in 2016 and most cases where this predictive public opinion polling completely misses the mark have to do with the unreliable predictive ability of how their calculate "likely". Its really much less accurate and much more arbitrary than the media makes out for click bait headlines which is why you have big polling errors like 2016.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
They don't hold though which was the biggest problem in the conventional polling in 2016 and most cases where this predictive public opinion polling completely misses the mark have to do with the unreliable predictive ability of how their calculate "likely". Its really much less accurate and much more arbitrary than the media makes out for click bait headlines which is why you have big polling errors like 2016.
Click to expand...

2016 wasn't really such a big polling error. It was off by just about enough to swing several states, and the biggest mistake was made by media misunderstanding margins of error and how they impact the actual likelihood of an upset (hence Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight getting stick for giving Trump a ~30% chance of winning). I don't have the numbers, but I'd bet that if you compare likely voter polls with general polls from 2016, you wouldn't find that the likely voter polls were any further from the actual results.

In any case, that poll doesn't even come from the media, it's linked directly from the pollsters. Clickbait headlines doesn't enter into it.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Biden's polling starting to take a big hit in California as I expected (even though this is still dubious with their BS "likely" arbitrary disclaimer)

At this rate he might end up sinking after a few debates.


ljVUDSR.jpg

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7wx193w5
Click to expand...

If he loses steam it will be very good for Beto, and possibly Harris since their numbers deflated after he announced.
 
nimic said:
2016 wasn't really such a big polling error. It was off by just about enough to swing several states, and the biggest mistake was made by media misunderstanding margins of error and how they impact the actual likelihood of an upset (hence Nate Silver and FiveThirtyEight getting stick for giving Trump a ~30% chance of winning). I don't have the numbers, but I'd bet that if you compare likely voter polls with general polls from 2016, you wouldn't find that the likely voter polls were any further from the actual results.

In any case, that poll doesn't even come from the media, it's linked directly from the pollsters. Clickbait headlines doesn't enter into it.
Click to expand...

Its not just the media but the pollsters themselves:
With hours to go before Americans vote, Democrat Hillary Clinton has about a 90 percent chance of defeating Republican Donald Trump in the race for the White House, according to the final Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project.

So even if both polls are "within the margin of error" one poll within margin of error that claims Clinton has 90 percent chance of winning is not equally accurate to the 538 where Clinton only has a 70 percent chance of winning. I can't find a reference on quick search but I've read a year ago that one of the biggest errors in 2016 was exactly that their formulas for likely voters turned out to be off. (Here is a quick reference to how different likely voter formulas can lead to 8 point differences in poll results from the same data set)

Pew’s newly-released report details how the same polling data on 2014 House races can shift from a 2-point Democratic lead to a 6-point Republican lead, depending on how likely voters are chosen. The data itself wasn’t biased toward either party; the differences are all in the likely voter calculation.
Click to expand...

Bill O'Reilly claims all these CNN et al polls about Trump losing a general election matchup to Biden are off because Trump voters will systematically not give reliable information to Democrat pollsters. This view can't just be dismissed because other measures like betting futures markets have Trump the solid betting favorite to beat Biden or Bernie which is very different from the current predictive polling.

Clickbait headlines absolutely factor into the way polls are reported. If headlines were more accurate they wouldn't be as catchy because they'd include more disclaimers.
 
Raoul said:
If he loses steam it will be very good for Beto, and possibly Harris since their numbers deflated after he announced.
Click to expand...

California Democrat primary rules are proportional delegates if the candidate can get over 15% of the vote.

So those current results would only help Bernie and Warren with delegates because neither Harris nor Beto is geting over 15% (of course that could completely change by next March)

And if Beto can win Texas and Biden falls below 15% in California that throws everything up in the air
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Its not just the media but the pollsters themselves:
With hours to go before Americans vote, Democrat Hillary Clinton has about a 90 percent chance of defeating Republican Donald Trump in the race for the White House, according to the final Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project.

So even if both polls are "within the margin of error" one poll within margin of error that claims Clinton has 90 percent chance of winning is not equally accurate to the 538 where Clinton only has a 70 percent chance of winning.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I don't see how this has anything to do with what I said. I didn't claim that all pollsters are created equal, that's why I brought up FiveThirtyEight in the first place. FiveThirtyEight uses polls with likely voters as well.

I can't find a reference on quick search but I've read a year ago that one of the biggest errors in 2016 was exactly that their formulas for likely voters turned out to be off. (Here is a quick reference to how different likely voter formulas can lead to 8 point differences in poll results from the same data set)
Click to expand...

That's interesting. If you do remember where you saw it, I'd very much like to see that data.

Bill O'Reilly claims all these CNN et al polls about Trump losing a general election matchup to Biden are off because Trump voters will systematically not give reliable information to Democrat pollsters. This view can't just be dismissed because other measures like betting futures markets have Trump the solid betting favorite to beat Biden or Bernie which is very different from the current predictive polling.
Click to expand...

I think you're misreading that. It has Trump as a more likely winner than Biden, Bernie or any other individual, because they still have to go through the primaries, while Trump is at least guaranteed a spot in the general election (well, essentially). Further down it appears they have the Democrats as favourites in general.

In any case, hasn't the "right-wingers don't dare tell pollsters their real position" thing been mostly debunked? I believe it's been shown that the polling errors generally go both ways, with no discernible pattern. So Le Pen did worse than many expected, for example, because they were pointing at Trump and Brexit and going "see, polls underestimate the right". The same happened in Austria, if I remember correctly.

Clickbait headlines absolutely factor into the way polls are reported. If headlines were more accurate they wouldn't be as catchy because they'd include more disclaimers.
Click to expand...

In general, absolutely, but I was talking about the poll you linked, which has a very non-clickybait-y title:

California’s Democratic Presidential Primary Race A Wide Open Affair. Biden holds slim lead; Kamala Harris currently running fourth in her home state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.