NYCmetsfan
Banned
Has there been any sign pollsters are correcting for 2010 mistakes? If they are I'll be more worried
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Has there been any sign pollsters are correcting for 2010 mistakes? If they are I'll be more worried
Avon Barksdale
Member
El Rushbo is the least-trusted news source.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I've harped on how horrible the free bacon and national review are
PhoenixDark
Banned
That might win Pryor the election.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Well you might.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/10/21/7026505/pew-media-outlets-ideology
/cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/2374966/media_ideology.0.png)
Apparently since I read Slate a lot I'm just like the talk radio audience but on the left. But I'm way more tolerant of moderates/"working across the isle" politicians than anybody that conservative so I wonder how Pew measured ideology.
I quit reading Slate long ago because of the heavy slanting of the articles. All the suff (except outrage) that I hate about the right-wing sites.
Makes sense it's that far over.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
They let most of the writers I used to read go too.
They have a good history with Hitchens, Weigel, Yglasias which were always at least interesting. The only guy I constantly like is their guy who writes on LGBT issues.
Aaron Strife
Banned
A Democratic pollster has Peters up 15 (!) in the MI Senate race, Schauer up 3 for governor. Take that how you will. Personally I feel if Peters is leading by that much there's nothing stopping him from taking Schauer over the finish line.
Sucks to suck:
I think Nunn will win.
Sucks to suck:
I think Nunn will win.
Almost everyone agrees that the election hinges on turnout at this point, and Democrats historically have a better voter mobilization operation in Colorado. New universal mail-in balloting may also help Democrats.
The outcome of the race, Ciruli says, will depend on whether Udall is able to get the full Democratic vote out of Denver and Boulder; whether Gardner is able to mobilize turnout in conservative bases like Douglas and El Paso Counties; whether Hispanic voters turn out or choose to stay home; and what happens in the three big swing counties – Arapahoe, Jefferson, and Larimer – where Democrats have had the edge in recent years.
"The question is whether voter mobilization can overcome an environment that currently favors Republicans," says Hanson.
_____________________________
Udall needs to pull through. I cant take it for 2 more weeks.
Kyle Kondik (one of the guys who writes for Sabato) tweeted some interesting things earlier today:
After some sniffing around today, here are a few observations about the Senate that I think are true:
1. Colorado is probably still a Toss-up despite good public polling for Gardner
2. NC and NH still Lean D, with the former remaining a better opportunity for Rs than the latter
3. In Kansas, Roberts dug himself out of a deep hole but now might be stalled in basically a tie
4. Crystal Ball was out front on moving IA to Leans R, and I think it still belongs there
5. The Arkansas Senate race is probably over (Cotton favored)
6. Michelle Nunn really does have a chance to win Georgia straight up on Election Day
At least Mark Kirk will probably be blanched in 2016.
The outcome of the race, Ciruli says, will depend on whether Udall is able to get the full Democratic vote out of Denver and Boulder; whether Gardner is able to mobilize turnout in conservative bases like Douglas and El Paso Counties; whether Hispanic voters turn out or choose to stay home; and what happens in the three big swing counties – Arapahoe, Jefferson, and Larimer – where Democrats have had the edge in recent years.
"The question is whether voter mobilization can overcome an environment that currently favors Republicans," says Hanson.
_____________________________
Udall needs to pull through. I cant take it for 2 more weeks.
Kyle Kondik (one of the guys who writes for Sabato) tweeted some interesting things earlier today:
After some sniffing around today, here are a few observations about the Senate that I think are true:
1. Colorado is probably still a Toss-up despite good public polling for Gardner
2. NC and NH still Lean D, with the former remaining a better opportunity for Rs than the latter
3. In Kansas, Roberts dug himself out of a deep hole but now might be stalled in basically a tie
4. Crystal Ball was out front on moving IA to Leans R, and I think it still belongs there
5. The Arkansas Senate race is probably over (Cotton favored)
6. Michelle Nunn really does have a chance to win Georgia straight up on Election Day
At least Mark Kirk will probably be blanched in 2016.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I was talking to an activist friend about the race. Last weekend they knocked on 2000 doors in our (liberal) county, reminding democrats to show the fuck up. I still think Snyder will win by 3-5 points. Recent polls show a near majority believe Michigan is improving. Given this election will be determined by the economy as well as turnout, I just don't see Snyder losing.
Meanwhile Peters should cruise to a win. It's going to be interesting seeing him win by 5-10 while Shauer potentially loses by 5. I really think the Granholm connection made him a horrible candidate to trot out there. Democrats need new blood with no connections to her.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Personal feelings right now about the Senate are
- IA/CO/NC/NH are all Dem holds by a few points each while Peters wins MI in a predictable and hilarious blowout
- AR/AK are probably Dem losses although I wouldn't be surprised if Pryor and Begich hang on
- GA is a win for Nunn, KY a win for McConnell (sigh)
- Orman still wins KS, caucuses with Democrats
- LA goes to run-off, Landrieu will have the advantage if Democrats already have a majority as special interests will want to keep her as chair of the Energy Committee
- Weiland plz
- IA/CO/NC/NH are all Dem holds by a few points each while Peters wins MI in a predictable and hilarious blowout
- AR/AK are probably Dem losses although I wouldn't be surprised if Pryor and Begich hang on
- GA is a win for Nunn, KY a win for McConnell (sigh)
- Orman still wins KS, caucuses with Democrats
- LA goes to run-off, Landrieu will have the advantage if Democrats already have a majority as special interests will want to keep her as chair of the Energy Committee
- Weiland plz
NYCmetsfan
Banned
BTW
LOL at the nation
http://www.thenation.com/cuba
the nation's foreign affairs coverage will go to bat for any oppressive regime which opposes the US.
This is something they'd condemn Ukraine or Israel doing. Its silly and absurd.
LOL at the nation
http://www.thenation.com/cuba
the nation's foreign affairs coverage will go to bat for any oppressive regime which opposes the US.
This is something they'd condemn Ukraine or Israel doing. Its silly and absurd.
That seems about right. I would put CO, NC, and NH in the D category with IA and AR going R. The big questions are Kansas (where I would bet on Orman), and Georgia (where it really comes to turnout to see if Nunn can get 50+1).
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I'm actually kind of worried about universal mail-in ballots. Republicans have historically done more early votes than democrats in colorado. For instance 2010 early voting was 35% Dem-41% Rep. That makes me wonder if republicans might actually be better suited for the switch. Colorado also already has about 80% of its vote coming from early voting, meaning it's not really that big of a change anyhow.
I've also had a hard time finding good studies proving an increase in turnout from a switch to all mail in ballots. I've seen a couple of references to studies that apparently say Oregon got a small boost, but most look like this study, saying there's no real change in turnout at all.
Watching the Florida Governor Debate, is Rick Scott supposed to be a human being? He believes in the concept of the min. wage, but wants the private market to set it. Then a father writes in saying the mild medical marijuana that is allowed to be used as a treatment for his daughter doesn't help enough and wants stronger brands legal and Scott replies with saying Florida wants people to have health care.
Living in the wrong state, buddy. I'd move if my daughter were in such a situation.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Another reason for constitutional right to vote brought up by the florida gov debate.
Felon disenfranchisement. If there was an inherent right to vote they would be unconstitutional especially ones like Florida.
Felon disenfranchisement. If there was an inherent right to vote they would be unconstitutional especially ones like Florida.
I voted early today in Texas. Mostly Democrat, Green when one was not listed, skipped a few when there was only Republican or Libertarian. There was even one uncontested race of just a Republican.
Though pessimistic about the results, I'm feeling pretty good about finally voting in midterms and a gubernatorial race.
Though pessimistic about the results, I'm feeling pretty good about finally voting in midterms and a gubernatorial race.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
The PPD model has always been more bullish on Rep. Tom Cotton in the Arkansas Senate race juxtaposed to other models, particularly the well-respected guys at Crystal Ball. We even previously disputed a decision they made to move the race to “Leans Democrat” some months back based on one PPP Poll before again moving it all the way to back to “Leans Republican” where it sits now.
We have always been pretty clear on our assessment, which is, even though Mark Pryor is a strong candidate and is certainly no Blanche Lincoln, it is more likely than not that he is going to lose. Now, both the public polling and PPD tracking data are converging with the “big picture” fundamentals.
Since mid-August, a single poll — CNN/Opinion Research — found him polling at 47 percent support. Pryor’s challenged by the reality he must run stronger than usual for a Democrat in the only swing region of the state remaining — the South — which means he must outperform in Arkansas’s 4th Congressional District, and you may have already guessed that it happens to be represented by Mr. Cotton. The district has continued to trend Republican, voting for Mitt Romney by a 26-point margin and currently has a PVI (Partisan Voting Index) of R+15.
In our analysis, we’ll talk more about the landscape in Arkansas county-by-county, and how each candidate is performing. The bottom line, Pryor isn’t just statistically challenged because of the estimated composition of the midterm electorate. With these numbers, even in an environment similar to presidential election level turnout, Pryor would still lose.
http://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/2014/10/21/election-analysis/pryor-all-but-finished-in-arkansas-senate-race-cotton-heavily-favored/
_______________________________________________________________
Pryor is finished. He should have retired and let Mike Beebe run.
Pryor gets to retire with a W/L of 3-0 & Beebe get elected. 2020, Beebe decides to serve one term allowing Mark Pryor to come back if the environment is good and Obama era is over.
We have always been pretty clear on our assessment, which is, even though Mark Pryor is a strong candidate and is certainly no Blanche Lincoln, it is more likely than not that he is going to lose. Now, both the public polling and PPD tracking data are converging with the “big picture” fundamentals.
Since mid-August, a single poll — CNN/Opinion Research — found him polling at 47 percent support. Pryor’s challenged by the reality he must run stronger than usual for a Democrat in the only swing region of the state remaining — the South — which means he must outperform in Arkansas’s 4th Congressional District, and you may have already guessed that it happens to be represented by Mr. Cotton. The district has continued to trend Republican, voting for Mitt Romney by a 26-point margin and currently has a PVI (Partisan Voting Index) of R+15.
In our analysis, we’ll talk more about the landscape in Arkansas county-by-county, and how each candidate is performing. The bottom line, Pryor isn’t just statistically challenged because of the estimated composition of the midterm electorate. With these numbers, even in an environment similar to presidential election level turnout, Pryor would still lose.
http://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/2014/10/21/election-analysis/pryor-all-but-finished-in-arkansas-senate-race-cotton-heavily-favored/
_______________________________________________________________
Pryor is finished. He should have retired and let Mike Beebe run.
Pryor gets to retire with a W/L of 3-0 & Beebe get elected. 2020, Beebe decides to serve one term allowing Mark Pryor to come back if the environment is good and Obama era is over.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Chris Christie acting like a jerk about minimum wage.
Why worry about the minimum wage when you can just go make more money instead?
Why worry about the minimum wage when you can just go make more money instead?
Some states don't allow felons to own guns. That is also in conflict with the constitution. That doesn't mean that people don't have a constitutional right to own guns.
There's a pretty big difference between a murderer owning a gun and being able to vote.
benjipwns
Banned
Whose diary is this?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/19/1337454/-2014-Democratic-Armageddon
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/19/1337454/-2014-Democratic-Armageddon
WayneMorse
Banned
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Out of all the senators he's the one I'll miss the least
WayneMorse
Banned
Not Landrieu?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
First of all, I'm not of the belief the second amendment ensures an individual right to a gun. It insures the right to bare arms to the people.
And secondly as he points out in the article it flips the script. The state would have to argue that it has a compelling interest in restricting people who've served their time (or even criminals in jails) shouldn't be able to vote. I can't see them winning that with a well worded amendment.
In FL you still can't vote after you've served your time, must wait 5 years, spend money, then appeal to the Gov who can still say no
NYCmetsfan
Banned
benjipwns
Banned
This isn't flipping the script if the state was never empowered to deny the right to vote in the first place.
An amendment wasn't needed for women's votes to be valid and counted same as any man's, it was simply an expedient.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I'm arguing for banning states from withholding a right. The Constitution now allows for them to have the right to vote or for the state to take it away. I'm denying the state a power to do the latter.
Your response is bizarre because its like saying there is no need for an amendment to ban slavery, its just an expedient.
Every amendment is in essence and expedient because the legislature could just pass laws.
benjipwns
Banned
I've said before I think the Republican clause with the P&I clause precludes the States from legislating away individuals rights like in slavery, speech, assembly, etc. (Although the Constitution had a 'slave...er Labour' disclaimer before the 13th removed it.) The Republican clause I would think apply rather strongly to any right or privilege to vote.
Not constitutionally though; in fact, a felon murderer has a better constitutional argument to own a gun than a felon has a constitutional right to vote.
Yes but logically there's a huge difference and equating the two is rather silly. It's far easier to justify denying a murderer a gun than it is to justify taking away his right to vote.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
so you're arguing for a far more invasive and overbroad judiciary than anyone on the left has called for.
And how does a republican form of government translate to everybody getting the right to vote?
benjipwns
Banned
So what?
How can you justify denying certain citizens the vote in a republican government?
I'd rather he do the violence himself so he can get caught and tried.
This is why we shouldn't worship the constitution, and in fact the Supreme Court should actively interpret it in a way that makes sense, beyond the text of the document itself.
benjipwns
Banned
It's really more of a problem of an extended sentence that's not called a sentence. Once your sentence is served you should get all your rights and privileges back because otherwise your sentence isn't actually over. If they're still a danger, then they should still be imprisoned, not free on pseudo-probation.
See also: sex offenders registry.
See also: sex offenders registry.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Murder's not the only felony.
This is the same mistake that Yglesias makes--he assumes that there is no constitutional right to vote, and so concludes that creating an express constitutional right to vote will change the way the courts review voting regulations. But if there already is a fundamental right to vote--and there is--then having the Constitution say so expressly won't change anything.
If what you want is to make felon disenfranchisement unconstitutional, then you should seek to enact an amendment that plainly says so, for two reasons. First, nobody likes a person who hides his or her true intention. Second, simply making the pre-existing fundamental right to vote express in the Constitution (probably) won't accomplish your goal; you'd need to be more specific. (This is especially so since abridging voting rights on account of a crime committed appears specifically permitted under section 2 of the 14th Amendment, as the Supreme Court pointed out in 1974 in Richardson v. Ramirez.)
A final comment:
And to whom is ensured the right against unreasonable searches and seizures?
EDIT:
OK, one more final comment:
Note that benji's making a different argument than the one I'm making. It's conceivable that the right to vote could have been extended to women by virtue of, say, the Equal Protection Clause. But my point is not that there's arguably a right already in the Constitution, if only we could convince the judges; it's that there's decidedly a right already in the Constitution--the judges are already convinced, and have already said so repeatedly.
benjipwns
Banned
Law enforcement officers.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
You read that backwards. That would be a partial answer to the question, "Against whom is ensured the right against unreasonable searches and seizures?" (Which would be a bizarre syntax in the first place.)
But you may have been joking, in which case, haha I get it.
To be fair I was the one who brought murderer into discussion.
I maintain that the right for a felon murderer to own a gun is stronger than the right for any felon to cast a vote.
Aaron Strife
Banned
The media has been ridiculous in its coddling of Ernst.
They decided months ago that the narrative would be that Braley is an elitist and Ernst is a down-to-earth hockey mom, and goshdarnit they're gonna stick to it!
benjipwns
Banned
https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-the-house-of-representatives-representative-32921
This is incredibly dumb. The comparison to Switzerland doesn't work because they have multi-member cantons. You'd have to make all states one single multi-member district not simply "allocate" winners to each district in this manner. (And you could still wind up with the national popular vote winner having less seats.) And if we turn the House into state-wide multi-member districts that defeats the purpose of having the House.
Cool site anyway, thanks for the heads up.
This is incredibly dumb. The comparison to Switzerland doesn't work because they have multi-member cantons. You'd have to make all states one single multi-member district not simply "allocate" winners to each district in this manner. (And you could still wind up with the national popular vote winner having less seats.) And if we turn the House into state-wide multi-member districts that defeats the purpose of having the House.
Cool site anyway, thanks for the heads up.
http://www.newsweek.com/photos-syria-allegedly-show-torture-systematic-killing-278894
Fuck it, just aim our bombs a few miles south and start taking out the Assad regime.
Fuck it, just aim our bombs a few miles south and start taking out the Assad regime.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
You keep saying he and I are making an mistake but quoting justices decisions doesn't ensure a right justices though they've constantly changed precedent. There's a declared right to vote in some cases that the justices have enounciated. But ask justice alito, scalia, or thomas if there is a right to an abortion or even a right to privacy in the constitution in there. Adding an amendment limits justices ability to waver. By your logic why have a 15th amendment if we have the 14th? the 14th protects the rights enumerated in the 15th.
and my reasons for supporting a voting rights amendment would be to strengthen protections not only felon disenfranchisement. your constant refrain of "don't worry we already got it covered" is typical conservative nonsense designed to keep the status quo that is trying to be fixed. Its not protected because justices clearly have no problem voting restrictions (see voter ID, VRA decisions).
And you quoting about another case says is meaningless (besides the fact you have the ability to search case law better than me) since the amendment would preempt that because that's clearly something that's wrong with the constitution.
and I'm not answering your gun rights questions that's been litigated here before. and by stevens in his dissent.
You may be right, but I still think that's the stupidest thing I have ever heard and if this is the case it needs to be changed. Once you've served your time you should be allowed to vote again seeing as how you've reentered society.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked