2022 Elections Thread

[GannonFan]

https://www.yahoo.com/video/independent ... 39526.html

So much for the GOP feeling the wrath of the angry wimmin.

James Carville was so prescient when he came up with the "it's the economy, stupid" catchphrase.

Besides, abortion has never been a wedge issue in an election. Even with the Dobbs decision, the electorate is split pretty evenly when it comes to abortion. You can phrase the question to get it to tilt one way or the other on a survey, but when it comes to elections it doesn't really win it for either side. Now, if one side starts to take it too far (GOP banning all abortions or Dems greenlighting abortions up to birth) and it would make more of a difference. The GOP is more in danger of that happening right now. So much nuance in terms of abortion but politicians rarely deal in nuance.

[JohnStOnge]

https://www.yahoo.com/video/independent ... 39526.html

So much for the GOP feeling the wrath of the angry wimmin.

James Carville was so prescient when he came up with the "it's the economy, stupid" catchphrase.

Besides, abortion has never been a wedge issue in an election. Even with the Dobbs decision, the electorate is split pretty evenly when it comes to abortion. You can phrase the question to get it to tilt one way or the other on a survey, but when it comes to elections it doesn't really win it for either side. Now, if one side starts to take it too far (GOP banning all abortions or Dems greenlighting abortions up to birth) and it would make more of a difference. The GOP is more in danger of that happening right now. So much nuance in terms of abortion but politicians rarely deal in nuance.

What I've always said is that it's stupid to vote based on what the economy is doing because there is tremendous variation in the economy that is beyond the control of any politician or government. Sure, it would be possible for somebody to screw up the economy if they really tried. But nobody does that. Inflation is not high right now because the Democrats are in control. Gas prices in particular are not high right now because the Democrats were in control. And, BTW, the economy wasn't doing what it was doing during 2017 through 2019 because Trump was President just like it didn't take it's biggest nose dive it had taken since 1946 during 2020 because Trump was President.

One of the saddest things about American Politics is that people perceive a cause and effect relationship between which political party is in power and what the economy is doing.

But people do perceive that. It is what it is.

Having said that, I think the abortion issue is important. I think that it's not likely to be enough to overcome the population's ignorance about the relationship between which Party is in power and inflation, but it's going to make things closer than they would have otherwise been and might allow Democrats to maintain control of the Senate.

I also think that there is a clear advantage to for the Democrats on this issue. I don't think it's just a matter of how the polling questions are asked. I think a substantial majority of the US public favors the basic structure of Roe vs. Wade. And that's where the Democratic Party basically is.

[GannonFan]

James Carville was so prescient when he came up with the "it's the economy, stupid" catchphrase.

Besides, abortion has never been a wedge issue in an election. Even with the Dobbs decision, the electorate is split pretty evenly when it comes to abortion. You can phrase the question to get it to tilt one way or the other on a survey, but when it comes to elections it doesn't really win it for either side. Now, if one side starts to take it too far (GOP banning all abortions or Dems greenlighting abortions up to birth) and it would make more of a difference. The GOP is more in danger of that happening right now. So much nuance in terms of abortion but politicians rarely deal in nuance.

What I've always said is that it's stupid to vote based on what the economy is doing because there is tremendous variation in the economy that is beyond the control of any politician or government. Sure, it would be possible for somebody to screw up the economy if they really tried. But nobody does that. Inflation is not high right now because the Democrats are in control. Gas prices in particular are not high right now because the Democrats were in control. And, BTW, the economy wasn't doing what it was doing during 2017 through 2019 because Trump was President just like it didn't take it's biggest nose dive it had taken since 1946 during 2020 because Trump was President.

One of the saddest things about American Politics is that people perceive a cause and effect relationship between which political party is in power and what the economy is doing.

But people do perceive that. It is what it is.

Having said that, I think the abortion issue is important. I think that it's not likely to be enough to overcome the population's ignorance about the relationship between which Party is in power and inflation, but it's going to make things closer than they would have otherwise been and might allow Democrats to maintain control of the Senate.

I also think that there is a clear advantage to for the Democrats on this issue. I don't think it's just a matter of how the polling questions are asked. I think a substantial majority of the US public favors the basic structure of Roe vs. Wade. And that's where the Democratic Party basically is.

In many cases, sure. But inflation is pretty simple. We absurdly pumped record amounts of money into the economy at a time when supply chains were still recovering from COVID and when they economy was already showing signs of a significant recovery. We did so under the false pretense of modern monetary theory that government spending can be virtually limitless with little negative impact. We have a perfect, real-life refutation of that theory. There is absolutely a direct relation of the mistakes, first of Trump in December of 2020, and then significantly so much more under Biden starting with the grossly ill advised massive COVID relief in March of 2021 and a host of other, similarly ill-timed stimulus measures that sent inflation in this country, with the world's largest economy, into an uncontrollable spiral of climbing inflation. Inflation is always a money supply phenomenon. Too much money chasing too few goods. No tea leaves to read here, no leaps of faith required. We injected too much money into the economy and we caused inflation to soar. I've always said Biden didn't do it alone (the Fed, Congress, certainly helped), but he's in charge and it's on his watch and he touted the very measures that put us in this hole. Politicians don't always have an impact on the economy. The difference is when they really screw up - then they can. That's what happened here.

[BDKJMU]

[kalm]

Shocking.

[kalm]

Despite popular opinion, red states and conk run cities have high murder rates…

Every news outlet from FOX to CNN to The New York Times to local newspapers has a story with attention-grabbing headlines like “US cities hit all-time murder records.” Fox News and Republicans have jumped on this and framed it as a “Democrat” problem. They blame it on Democrat’s “soft-on-crime” approach and have even referred to a New York District Attorney’s approach as “hug-a-thug.” Many news stories outside of Fox have also purported that police reform is responsible for this rise in murder and have pointed to cities like New York and Los Angeles.

There is a measure of truth to these stories. The US saw an alarming 30% increase in murder in 2020. While 2021 data is not yet complete, murder was on the rise again this past year. Some “blue” cities, like Chicago, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, have seen real and persistent increases in homicides. These cities—along with others like Los Angeles, New York, and Minneapolis—are also in places with wall-to-wall media coverage and national media interest.

But there is a large piece of the homicide story that is missing and calls into question the veracity of the right-wing obsession over homicides in Democratic cities: murder rates are far higher in Trump-voting red states than Biden-voting blue states. And sometimes, murder rates are highest in cities with Republican mayors.

For example, Jacksonville, a city with a Republican mayor, had 128 more murders in 2020 than San Francisco, a city with a Democrat mayor, despite their comparable populations. In fact, the homicide rate in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco was half that of House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy’s Bakersfield, a city with a Republican mayor that overwhelmingly voted for Trump. Yet there is barely a whisper, let alone an outcry, over the stunning levels of murders in these and other places. Every news outlet from FOX to CNN to The New York Times to local newspapers has a story with attention-grabbing headlines like “US cities hit all-time murder records.” Fox News and Republicans have jumped on this and framed it as a “Democrat” problem. They blame it on Democrat’s “soft-on-crime” approach and have even referred to a New York District Attorney’s approach as “hug-a-thug.” Many news stories outside of Fox have also purported that police reform is responsible for this rise in murder and have pointed to cities like New York and Los Angeles.

https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-red ... er-problem

[BDKJMU]

All 16 cities with record high homicides in 2021 have Democrat mayors
https://www.independentsentinel.com/all ... at-mayors/

Is there a single conk run city below?

[kalm]

All 16 cities with record high homicides in 2021 have Democrat mayors
https://www.independentsentinel.com/all ... at-mayors/

Is there a single conk run city below?

I don’t know. But red states have a murder problem too as well as some conk run cities.

[BDKJMU]

2020:

Here are the 10 states with the highest murder rate:

Mississippi - 20.50 per 100k
Louisiana - 19.90 per 100k
Alabama - 14.20 per 100k
Missouri - 14 per 100k
Arkansas - 13 per 100k
South Carolina - 12.70 per 100k
Tennessee - 11.50 per 100k
Maryland - 11.40 per 100k
Illinois - 11.20 per 100k
New Mexico - 10.80 per 100k

Bottom 10:
41. Iowa
42. Minnesota
43. Hawaii
44. Rhode Island
45. Massachusetts
46. Utah
47. Idaho
48. Vermont
49. Maine
50. New Hampshire
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... e-by-state

Hmm, I see a correlation there..not red/blue, but black/white..

[BDKJMU]

All 16 cities with record high homicides in 2021 have Democrat mayors
https://www.independentsentinel.com/all ... at-mayors/

Is there a single conk run city below?

I don’t know. But red states have a murder problem too as well as some conk run cities.

Sure- look at the states with the highest percent black populations..

[kalm]

I don’t know. But red states have a murder problem too as well as some conk run cities.

Sure- look at the states with the highest percent black populations..

Most crime is socio-economic. Your point?

[BDKJMU]

Sure- look at the states with the highest percent black populations..

Most crime is socio-economic. Your point?

According to the FBI’s yearly UCR, about 6% of the population (and its really more like 2%) commits a vastly disproportionate amount of violent crime, including about 1/2 of all murders.

[GannonFan]

Most crime is socio-economic. Your point?

According to the FBI’s yearly UCR, about 6% of the population (and its really more like 2%) commits a vastly disproportionate amount of violent crime, including about 1/2 of all murders.

Isn't that kinda a silly stat? I mean, if more than 2% of the population were committing murders, wouldn't that be akin to a war? And really that number is much lower - there were only 24k homicides in America last year, so even if every murderer only killed one person each, then only 0.8% of the population would be committing murder in a year.

[BDKJMU]

According to the FBI’s yearly UCR, about 6% of the population (and its really more like 2%) commits a vastly disproportionate amount of violent crime, including about 1/2 of all murders.

Isn't that kinda a silly stat? I mean, if more than 2% of the population were committing murders, wouldn't that be akin to a war? And really that number is much lower - there were only 24k homicides in America last year, so even if every murderer only killed one person each, then only 0.8% of the population would be committing murder in a year.

No. Its a concerning stat. Black males between 15 and I think it was 35, about 2% of the population, committ about 50% of murders. Also a disproportionate amount of the murder victims. Socioeconomic is a factor, but for some reason, race is a stronger factor.

[GannonFan]

Isn't that kinda a silly stat? I mean, if more than 2% of the population were committing murders, wouldn't that be akin to a war? And really that number is much lower - there were only 24k homicides in America last year, so even if every murderer only killed one person each, then only 0.8% of the population would be committing murder in a year.

No. Its a concerning stat. Black males between 15 and I think it was 35, about 2% of the population, committ about 50% of murders. Also a disproportionate amount of the murder victims. Socioeconomic is a factor, but for some reason, race is a stronger factor.

But socioeconomic is the factor. I mean, how many upper middle class or wealthy Black males between 15 and 35 are committing murder? I'm guessing a very, very low number.

[DSUrocks07]

I mean, how many upper middle class or wealthy Black males between 15 and 35 are committing murder? I'm guessing a very, very low number.

"They ain't black" - LGB


so they don't count, of course.

Sent from my SM-G781U1 using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

No. Its a concerning stat. Black males between 15 and I think it was 35, about 2% of the population, committ about 50% of murders. Also a disproportionate amount of the murder victims. Socioeconomic is a factor, but for some reason, race is a stronger factor.

But socioeconomic is the factor. I mean, how many upper middle class or wealthy Black males between 15 and 35 are committing murder? I'm guessing a very, very low number.

Not to go all JSO, but there are studies out there that comparing race vs socioeconomics as predictors of crime, stating both are factors, but race is a bigger one. See the below "Race vs Economics as Predictors of Crime"
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/in ... and-crime/

[GannonFan]

What triggers the runoff in GA for the Senate? Is there any realistic scenario where that doesn't basically just go to the runoff?

In PA, a lot really centers on the lone debate coming up between Fetterman and Oz. Oz has all the momentum now - all the stuff that primary Dems threw at Fetterman in the primaries (i.e. living off family wealth, no real tangible improvements when he was small town mayor, no accomplishments as Lt Governor - which is hard, it's a do nothing position really - and his adherence to criminal justice reform that is only really eloquated as trying to get people out of jail - no comment about how to square that with increases in crime) are all coming home to roost. And Fetterman, whether it be his stroke or something else, isn't really that polished of a speaker to explain away those criticisms. Oz will still have to deal with being the outsider and being the celebrity doctor and with being supported by Trump, but those are right now showing as lesser knocks than the ones against Fetterman right now. They're both flawed candidates, so the key is to keep the light shining on the other guy. Right now the light is clearly shining on Fetterman.

[BDKJMU]

Back to election news. Overseas gambling markets now betting conks gain control of the Senate. Predicit, which had the donks as high as 51 seats late summer, and 50 seats most of Sept, last week moved to the conks at 51 seats.
https://www.predictit.org/

Don't look now, but 1st PA poll with Oz in a tie with Uncle Fester and RCP now projects it as a GOP hold, noting that 2016 to 2020 Polls Underestimated GOP by 5.1
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll ... -7695.html

Since June every single repeat poll has moved the race closer and closer.
Franklin Marshall has gone from +13 to +4
Fox News has gone from +11 to +6
USA Today/Suffolk has gone from +9 to +6.
Fabrizio/Anzalone has gone from +6 to +2
Trafalgar has gone from +4 to +2 to +2
The Hill/Emerson has gone from +4 to +2.
Insider Advantage has gone from +3 to tie.

RCP now has the conks at 52 seats (pickups NV and AZ) + GA as a Dec 6 runoff.

[BDKJMU]

What triggers the runoff in GA for the Senate? Is there any realistic scenario where that doesn't basically just go to the runoff?

In PA, a lot really centers on the lone debate coming up between Fetterman and Oz. Oz has all the momentum now - all the stuff that primary Dems threw at Fetterman in the primaries (i.e. living off family wealth, no real tangible improvements when he was small town mayor, no accomplishments as Lt Governor - which is hard, it's a do nothing position really - and his adherence to criminal justice reform that is only really eloquated as trying to get people out of jail - no comment about how to square that with increases in crime) are all coming home to roost. And Fetterman, whether it be his stroke or something else, isn't really that polished of a speaker to explain away those criticisms. Oz will still have to deal with being the outsider and being the celebrity doctor and with being supported by Trump, but those are right now showing as lesser knocks than the ones against Fetterman right now. They're both flawed candidates, so the key is to keep the light shining on the other guy. Right now the light is clearly shining on Fetterman.

Oops, I was trying to flip my 2 posts around at the same time you responded so you responded to my post that is now after your above post.

[BDKJMU]

What triggers the runoff in GA for the Senate? Is there any realistic scenario where that doesn't basically just go to the runoff?

In PA, a lot really centers on the lone debate coming up between Fetterman and Oz. Oz has all the momentum now - all the stuff that primary Dems threw at Fetterman in the primaries (i.e. living off family wealth, no real tangible improvements when he was small town mayor, no accomplishments as Lt Governor - which is hard, it's a do nothing position really - and his adherence to criminal justice reform that is only really eloquated as trying to get people out of jail - no comment about how to square that with increases in crime) are all coming home to roost. And Fetterman, whether it be his stroke or something else, isn't really that polished of a speaker to explain away those criticisms. Oz will still have to deal with being the outsider and being the celebrity doctor and with being supported by Trump, but those are right now showing as lesser knocks than the ones against Fetterman right now. They're both flawed candidates, so the key is to keep the light shining on the other guy. Right now the light is clearly shining on Fetterman.

If neither Warnock or Walker get 50%, which is a possibility, as they are neck and neck, with a Libertarian candidate polling at around 4%..
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/p ... 542142002/

[BDKJMU]

Brandon in Pittsburgh today campaigning for Uncle Fester. I couldn’t think of a more cognitive pair..

[kalm]

But socioeconomic is the factor. I mean, how many upper middle class or wealthy Black males between 15 and 35 are committing murder? I'm guessing a very, very low number.

Not to go all JSO, but there are studies out there that comparing race vs socioeconomics as predictors of crime, stating both are factors, but race is a bigger one. See the below "Race vs Economics as Predictors of Crime"
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/in ... and-crime/

Why is race a factor?

[houndawg]

No, we're not talking middle class. Young folks (who this relief targets) in their mid to late 20's aren't making over $125k yet - but this relief is going to mostly college graduates (granted, some going to folks who didn't graduate) who have their whole careers ahead of them and many will be making well in excess of the $125k as soon as next year or the several years to come. Kids coming out of law school are just as likely to get this relief as a first generation student of color working a low paying, civil service job. In the end, many very well to do people are going to be cashing a $10k check from the government paid for by the 99% of people in this country who will make less in their lifetimes than those people will make in a year. That's regressive.

As to the benefit of the economy as a whole, when did you become a trickle-down guy? A rising water lifts all boats? Like any theory, they have their plusses and minuses. But also consider that we're in the midst of a generational inflation disaster, one that is very directly attributed to government overspend. Again, inflation is always a money-supply phenomenon. We pumped too much money into an economy that didn't need the additional money. Too much money chasing too few goods always results in inflation. This is at least a $400B infusion of money into an already inflationary economy. The benefits to the economy as a whole are significantly in doubt. Unless you enjoy inflation, which if you do this is welcome news.

1) Do you have numbers handy to back that up? Who it’s going to, their income and age, and definition of middle class?

2). Trickle down can be reduced to capital preceding labor. Unless all of these college grads become captains of industry, your attempted gotcha falls flat.

will PPP money be forgiven too?

[houndawg]

But socioeconomic is the factor. I mean, how many upper middle class or wealthy Black males between 15 and 35 are committing murder? I'm guessing a very, very low number.

Not to go all JSO, but there are studies out there that comparing race vs socioeconomics as predictors of crime, stating both are factors, but race is a bigger one. See the below "Race vs Economics as Predictors of Crime"
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/in ... and-crime/

thats where the poverty is.