Democrats November edge evaporates after kavanaugh hearing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FiveThirtyEight put out a pretty detailed analysis this morning of how they think the Kavanaugh hearing is affecting midterms: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/

On the House side, the upshot is that the numbers have moved back and forth through the process, but overall Republicans are polling slightly worse now than they were before Kavanaugh was nominated, especially if you look at district-level polls.

On the Senate side, Republicans' odds of keeping the Senate have improved overall since Kavanaugh was nominated (like the House, they've fluctuated throughout the process, but never dipped so low that they were in real jeopardy of losing the Senate). What's less clear is whether this improvement is because they're capturing the support of more swing voters or because their committed base has been energized by the Kavanaugh hearings.00 The piece seems to lean toward the conclusion that it's a more energized base compensating for the GOP actually losing swing voters, based on the combination of the Republicans closing the gap between registered and likely voters, but showing less support in polling at the district level. This means that the resolution of the Kavanaugh vote could affect the outcome -- if he's confirmed, the people who were only going to turn out because they were angry about Kavanaugh probably stay home and the GOP overall fares worse in November (but probably still keep the Senate), and if he's not, the Republicans could end up with more of a majority than previously expected.

538 really led me astray 2 years ago, and I’m not sure I have forgiven them yet.

538 came the closest of just about anyone to calling the actual result in 2016. They took a ton of heat during the election from people who said they were overestimating Trump's chances, they were the ones saying Trump had a real chance of winning in the final week before the election, and their final forecast gave Trump a 30% chance of winning (which is far from nothing) when other outlets were putting him at single digits.

Ok. So they were less wrong than others. But still wrong. They had HRC in the upper 80’s as of a few days prior, and still 71% on Election Day. I would not call that a win for them.

So if you're rolling a die and I say you only have a 1-in-3 chance of rolling a 1 or 2 and then you do roll a 2, does that mean I was wrong? Does that mean rolling a 1 or 2 was actually more likely than rolling a 3, 4, 5 or 6?

People like the PP should go watch horse races and complain that the group publishing the odds was wrong wrong when the odds-favorite horse doesn't win.

I heard a bit of an NPR show the other night where the interviewee was saying that statistics and probability should be given a much greater role in basic math education than things like trigonometry, because most people aren't going to use trigonometry in their day-to-day adult lives but statistics and probability are things we're exposed to nearly every day and that people really should understand better than the average American does. I think there's something to it.

Yea, probably for kids that are not on a STEM track. The key to math, especially higher level math, isn't that it is somehow incredibly practical for grown adult practitioners. Other than professors and research scientists, most practicing engineers do not remember a broad set of mathematic theories and equations. Generally the detailed knowledge are distilled down to rules of thumbs and engineers mostly rely on modern technological tools to make the actual calculations. For example I learned how to do Fourier Transforms in college and use it every day in my work, but I don't actually calculate any Fourier transformations myself - I use a computer software tool that does it as part of a whole suite of calculations and I just interpret the results. What math teaches is logic and reasoning. The process of learning ever more complex math is to exercise the brain at ever more complex levels. If you've studied Differential Equations, that means your brain has now demonstrated the ability to comprehend that level of logical complexity. I vaguely remember the term Eigen Values as the only remnant of those classes and I could not tell you what they are and what they can be used for. I do know that if I need to use them, I have the capacity to learn it - because I've done it before.

[Anonymous]

and yet again, the american people lose

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are missing the point:

It was known from the start that the mid-terms were going to hinge on turn out. The Democrats were really fired up about voting for the various reasons that others have cited. The Republicans were fairly complacent. What has turned things around is the Kavanaugh fracas and the belief by Republicans that he has been hounded and pilloried by Democrats - it does not matter whether this is valid.

I think the Democrats will still take the House but the Senate, at best, will remain in Republican hands and they may even increase their majority.

The thing about Trump is that despite all his nuttiness, he is very savvy politically. He really does not care if Kavanaugh goes down which is why he has stuck with him. If he goes down, you can be sure that he will exploit it to the hilt and enrage Republicans even more and you will likely see a massive turn-out in November. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, Trump will brag about it and drive Republicans to vote because he will say that without a solid majority in the Senate, other appointments are in jeopardy and will cite the Kavanaugh experience.

Democratic incumbent senators in red states are in a bind; their best bet - at least some of them - would be to support Kavanaugh's confirmation. Voting against his confirmation will jeopardize their reelection prospects. Voting in his favor may just possibly help.

We all get the point. We just disagree about what anyone was supposed to do about this. Is your suggestion that we accept this unqualified, dispositionally unfit accused sex predator for the bench because then maybe Trump will keep quiet and Republicans will forget there's an election?

What matters is the end game: the Democrats sought short term advantage with the FBI background check, etc. It has given those who are on the fence cover to vote for Kavanaugh. At this point what can we do to minimize the fall-out whether he is confirmed or not?

If I were Trump, if he goes down, I'd renominate him and urge Republicans to get out and vote so that a larger majority can ensure that Kavanaugh or someone else is confirmed.

Vulnerable Democratic senators are boxed in: either vote for Kavanaugh and have a chance of being reelected or vote against him and risk being voted out by ramped up turnout.

I think you are missing the point because you are focused on only two of the three branches: a judge who lied and expressed strong partisan views is about to get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. This body of government is supposed to be the one that balances the other two -- he throws off the balance. This is why all ABA and law professors have come out against him. Listen to the people who understand this branch of government the most. They know this is wrong.

You say the bolded part as if that's the broadly accepted truth, but it isn't. If you are at all concerned with the functioning of the court in terms of how well it retains the original intent as an independent judiciary that balances the power of the other two branches, then by default your preference should be for a textualist judge like Scalia, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Yet Democrats are dead-set on using the judiciary as a way to interpret new meaning into existing law, and are thus the ones who have caused the politicization of the court. If you don't believe me, look at what Scalia said about RvW. He said he doesn't care what the public thinks about abortion, he cares what the US constitution says about it, which is nothing. He says if the people wants abortion to be protected, just make it into law, that it is wrong to depend on the personal opinions of 9 individuals on what modern law says on the subject. He says that how he feels about abortion on a personal level is irrelevant. Does that sound like the position of a partisan judge?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:and yet again, the american people lose

These are the same Americans that threatened to move to Canada (but not Mexico) if Trump won?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FiveThirtyEight put out a pretty detailed analysis this morning of how they think the Kavanaugh hearing is affecting midterms: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-kavanaugh-helping-republicans-midterm-chances/

On the House side, the upshot is that the numbers have moved back and forth through the process, but overall Republicans are polling slightly worse now than they were before Kavanaugh was nominated, especially if you look at district-level polls.

On the Senate side, Republicans' odds of keeping the Senate have improved overall since Kavanaugh was nominated (like the House, they've fluctuated throughout the process, but never dipped so low that they were in real jeopardy of losing the Senate). What's less clear is whether this improvement is because they're capturing the support of more swing voters or because their committed base has been energized by the Kavanaugh hearings.00 The piece seems to lean toward the conclusion that it's a more energized base compensating for the GOP actually losing swing voters, based on the combination of the Republicans closing the gap between registered and likely voters, but showing less support in polling at the district level. This means that the resolution of the Kavanaugh vote could affect the outcome -- if he's confirmed, the people who were only going to turn out because they were angry about Kavanaugh probably stay home and the GOP overall fares worse in November (but probably still keep the Senate), and if he's not, the Republicans could end up with more of a majority than previously expected.

538 really led me astray 2 years ago, and I’m not sure I have forgiven them yet.

538 came the closest of just about anyone to calling the actual result in 2016. They took a ton of heat during the election from people who said they were overestimating Trump's chances, they were the ones saying Trump had a real chance of winning in the final week before the election, and their final forecast gave Trump a 30% chance of winning (which is far from nothing) when other outlets were putting him at single digits.

Ok. So they were less wrong than others. But still wrong. They had HRC in the upper 80’s as of a few days prior, and still 71% on Election Day. I would not call that a win for them.

So if you're rolling a die and I say you only have a 1-in-3 chance of rolling a 1 or 2 and then you do roll a 2, does that mean I was wrong? Does that mean rolling a 1 or 2 was actually more likely than rolling a 3, 4, 5 or 6?

People like the PP should go watch horse races and complain that the group publishing the odds was wrong wrong when the odds-favorite horse doesn't win.

I heard a bit of an NPR show the other night where the interviewee was saying that statistics and probability should be given a much greater role in basic math education than things like trigonometry, because most people aren't going to use trigonometry in their day-to-day adult lives but statistics and probability are things we're exposed to nearly every day and that people really should understand better than the average American does. I think there's something to it.

Yea, probably for kids that are not on a STEM track. The key to math, especially higher level math, isn't that it is somehow incredibly practical for grown adult practitioners. Other than professors and research scientists, most practicing engineers do not remember a broad set of mathematic theories and equations. Generally the detailed knowledge are distilled down to rules of thumbs and engineers mostly rely on modern technological tools to make the actual calculations. For example I learned how to do Fourier Transforms in college and use it every day in my work, but I don't actually calculate any Fourier transformations myself - I use a computer software tool that does it as part of a whole suite of calculations and I just interpret the results. What math teaches is logic and reasoning. The process of learning ever more complex math is to exercise the brain at ever more complex levels. If you've studied Differential Equations, that means your brain has now demonstrated the ability to comprehend that level of logical complexity. I vaguely remember the term Eigen Values as the only remnant of those classes and I could not tell you what they are and what they can be used for. I do know that if I need to use them, I have the capacity to learn it - because I've done it before.

Five points granted for making technically correct statements, ten points deducted for complete irrelevance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
People these days tend to tell you want you want to hear. No one wants to get their head bashed in (by NPR crazies) for speaking the truth.

Funny how you Libs have learned nothing.

for 2.5 years now you morons have been shouting "THIS IS WHY TRUMP WON" and "THIS IS WHY TRUMP WILL WIN AGAIN" every time dems do something you don't like.

it's like you have a string in your back and this is the only thing you can say. idiots keep idioting.

Nah, that would be you

(Pull string) "Russia Russia Russia!!!! Collusion Collusion!!!!"

no you're the puppet. no you're the racist. this is why trump won. blah blah blah. you have nothing worthwhile to say so you just try to get people riled up. you're trolls. moron trolls.

Hey Pee Wee and Francis, take this nonsense to the playground.

sorry. you're right. (but she started it.)

I'm the Pee Wee poster and your parentheses made me laugh. Welcome in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are missing the point:

It was known from the start that the mid-terms were going to hinge on turn out. The Democrats were really fired up about voting for the various reasons that others have cited. The Republicans were fairly complacent. What has turned things around is the Kavanaugh fracas and the belief by Republicans that he has been hounded and pilloried by Democrats - it does not matter whether this is valid.

I think the Democrats will still take the House but the Senate, at best, will remain in Republican hands and they may even increase their majority.

The thing about Trump is that despite all his nuttiness, he is very savvy politically. He really does not care if Kavanaugh goes down which is why he has stuck with him. If he goes down, you can be sure that he will exploit it to the hilt and enrage Republicans even more and you will likely see a massive turn-out in November. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, Trump will brag about it and drive Republicans to vote because he will say that without a solid majority in the Senate, other appointments are in jeopardy and will cite the Kavanaugh experience.

Democratic incumbent senators in red states are in a bind; their best bet - at least some of them - would be to support Kavanaugh's confirmation. Voting against his confirmation will jeopardize their reelection prospects. Voting in his favor may just possibly help.

We all get the point. We just disagree about what anyone was supposed to do about this. Is your suggestion that we accept this unqualified, dispositionally unfit accused sex predator for the bench because then maybe Trump will keep quiet and Republicans will forget there's an election?

What matters is the end game: the Democrats sought short term advantage with the FBI background check, etc. It has given those who are on the fence cover to vote for Kavanaugh. At this point what can we do to minimize the fall-out whether he is confirmed or not?

If I were Trump, if he goes down, I'd renominate him and urge Republicans to get out and vote so that a larger majority can ensure that Kavanaugh or someone else is confirmed.

Vulnerable Democratic senators are boxed in: either vote for Kavanaugh and have a chance of being reelected or vote against him and risk being voted out by ramped up turnout.

I think you are missing the point because you are focused on only two of the three branches: a judge who lied and expressed strong partisan views is about to get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. This body of government is supposed to be the one that balances the other two -- he throws off the balance. This is why all ABA and law professors have come out against him. Listen to the people who understand this branch of government the most. They know this is wrong.

You say the bolded part as if that's the broadly accepted truth, but it isn't. If you are at all concerned with the functioning of the court in terms of how well it retains the original intent as an independent judiciary that balances the power of the other two branches, then by default your preference should be for a textualist judge like Scalia, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Yet Democrats are dead-set on using the judiciary as a way to interpret new meaning into existing law, and are thus the ones who have caused the politicization of the court. If you don't believe me, look at what Scalia said about RvW. He said he doesn't care what the public thinks about abortion, he cares what the US constitution says about it, which is nothing. He says if the people wants abortion to be protected, just make it into law, that it is wrong to depend on the personal opinions of 9 individuals on what modern law says on the subject. He says that how he feels about abortion on a personal level is irrelevant. Does that sound like the position of a partisan judge?

You say this as if it were broadly accepted truths, which it isn't. There are other Justices who feel differently about how to interpret the Constitution. That is what the Judiciary does, interprets. This is especially the case where there is textual silence. They interpret what the founders, drafters, whatever, may have meant.
So, while you are correct that Scalia et al., subscribe to the "strict" reading of the document, there are other Justices (on SCOTUS and in the lower courts) that do not. One is not correct and the other incorrect. They are different views as to the standards that should be applying in that review.

I don't give a rat's behind what Scalia says, btw. Roe, as well as the other cases applying privacy rights, has been reinforced many times over the last several decades. Stare Decisis is also supp'd to matter to the Courts. And if that is the case, it doesn't matter that he disagrees, or Gorsuch, or Alito. They can't just decide they don't like it w/o violating SD. And in doing so, violating the integrity of the court, their decisions, past, present, and future.

[Anonymous]

Let’s hope the dems drag out the Kavanaugh confirmation for another two weeks! We will crush the dems in the midterms if they do. McConnel is probably seriously contemplating this right now.

[Anonymous]

Only the Dems could lose momentum and still allow a partisan hack on the Supreme Court. No one snatches defeat from the jaws of victory quite like the Dems. Starting an all-out war against the largest voting block in the country is a great way to go into the midterms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s hope the dems drag out the Kavanaugh confirmation for another two weeks! We will crush the dems in the midterms if they do. McConnel is probably seriously contemplating this right now.

Not a chance. McConnell knows the longer this goes on, the more people will come out of the woodwork against Kavanaugh and the greater the odds they won't be able to confirm him. The GOP probably holds the Senate but loses the House either way, having Kavanugh still in the mix isn't likely to change that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only the Dems could lose momentum and still allow a partisan hack on the Supreme Court. No one snatches defeat from the jaws of victory quite like the Dems. Starting an all-out war against the largest voting block in the country is a great way to go into the midterms.

Who are the largest voting blocks in the country? Rs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only the Dems could lose momentum and still allow a partisan hack on the Supreme Court. No one snatches defeat from the jaws of victory quite like the Dems. Starting an all-out war against the largest voting block in the country is a great way to go into the midterms.

Who are the largest voting blocks in the country? Rs?

Women are the largest group of voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You guys are missing the point:

It was known from the start that the mid-terms were going to hinge on turn out. The Democrats were really fired up about voting for the various reasons that others have cited. The Republicans were fairly complacent. What has turned things around is the Kavanaugh fracas and the belief by Republicans that he has been hounded and pilloried by Democrats - it does not matter whether this is valid.

I think the Democrats will still take the House but the Senate, at best, will remain in Republican hands and they may even increase their majority.

The thing about Trump is that despite all his nuttiness, he is very savvy politically. He really does not care if Kavanaugh goes down which is why he has stuck with him. If he goes down, you can be sure that he will exploit it to the hilt and enrage Republicans even more and you will likely see a massive turn-out in November. If Kavanaugh is confirmed, Trump will brag about it and drive Republicans to vote because he will say that without a solid majority in the Senate, other appointments are in jeopardy and will cite the Kavanaugh experience.

Democratic incumbent senators in red states are in a bind; their best bet - at least some of them - would be to support Kavanaugh's confirmation. Voting against his confirmation will jeopardize their reelection prospects. Voting in his favor may just possibly help.

We all get the point. We just disagree about what anyone was supposed to do about this. Is your suggestion that we accept this unqualified, dispositionally unfit accused sex predator for the bench because then maybe Trump will keep quiet and Republicans will forget there's an election?

What matters is the end game: the Democrats sought short term advantage with the FBI background check, etc. It has given those who are on the fence cover to vote for Kavanaugh. At this point what can we do to minimize the fall-out whether he is confirmed or not?

If I were Trump, if he goes down, I'd renominate him and urge Republicans to get out and vote so that a larger majority can ensure that Kavanaugh or someone else is confirmed.

Vulnerable Democratic senators are boxed in: either vote for Kavanaugh and have a chance of being reelected or vote against him and risk being voted out by ramped up turnout.

I think you are missing the point because you are focused on only two of the three branches: a judge who lied and expressed strong partisan views is about to get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. This body of government is supposed to be the one that balances the other two -- he throws off the balance. This is why all ABA and law professors have come out against him. Listen to the people who understand this branch of government the most. They know this is wrong.

You say the bolded part as if that's the broadly accepted truth, but it isn't. If you are at all concerned with the functioning of the court in terms of how well it retains the original intent as an independent judiciary that balances the power of the other two branches, then by default your preference should be for a textualist judge like Scalia, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Yet Democrats are dead-set on using the judiciary as a way to interpret new meaning into existing law, and are thus the ones who have caused the politicization of the court. If you don't believe me, look at what Scalia said about RvW. He said he doesn't care what the public thinks about abortion, he cares what the US constitution says about it, which is nothing. He says if the people wants abortion to be protected, just make it into law, that it is wrong to depend on the personal opinions of 9 individuals on what modern law says on the subject. He says that how he feels about abortion on a personal level is irrelevant. Does that sound like the position of a partisan judge?

You say this as if it were broadly accepted truths, which it isn't. There are other Justices who feel differently about how to interpret the Constitution. That is what the Judiciary does, interprets. This is especially the case where there is textual silence. They interpret what the founders, drafters, whatever, may have meant.
So, while you are correct that Scalia et al., subscribe to the "strict" reading of the document, there are other Justices (on SCOTUS and in the lower courts) that do not. One is not correct and the other incorrect. They are different views as to the standards that should be applying in that review.

I don't give a rat's behind what Scalia says, btw. Roe, as well as the other cases applying privacy rights, has been reinforced many times over the last several decades. Stare Decisis is also supp'd to matter to the Courts. And if that is the case, it doesn't matter that he disagrees, or Gorsuch, or Alito. They can't just decide they don't like it w/o violating SD. And in doing so, violating the integrity of the court, their decisions, past, present, and future.

Huh? You complain that the judiciary branch has departed from the function of "supposed to be the one that balances the other two", essentially an originalist position on the function of the Supreme Court, but then when it's pointed out that Scalia, Gorsuch, and Kavanaughs are the textualists, which is the judicial philosophy that preserves the original meaning of laws that regulates the functions of our government, you then argue that you don't agree with their views? So do you want the original purpose of the Supreme Court preserved or not?

If you cared about the purpose of the supreme court, why would you not care what Scalia, a Supreme Court Justice, has said about the purpose of the court, especially since he is a justice who shares your view about preserving the original purpose of the court?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s hope the dems drag out the Kavanaugh confirmation for another two weeks! We will crush the dems in the midterms if they do. McConnel is probably seriously contemplating this right now.

Why do you think the FBI report is secret for now? Because he is going to slowly reveal it to the senators, who will then leak portions of it to the media, until under intense media pressure by the likes of Rachel Maddow, it will be revealed to show???

Stay tuned, all new episode next week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only the Dems could lose momentum and still allow a partisan hack on the Supreme Court. No one snatches defeat from the jaws of victory quite like the Dems. Starting an all-out war against the largest voting block in the country is a great way to go into the midterms.

Who are the largest voting blocks in the country? Rs?

Whites.