Support NeoGAF

[NeoXChaos]

How was Romney going to swing what ended up being a 7 point difference? That is 3 points higher than the overall popular vote.


But they still won it, in years with very close elections a Republican actually won (well, sort of).

Easy, depress turnout and increase his share among white voters and minorities. Its really simple guys for a Republican to win. Its not hard to swing 3-6 ponts in national election. The popular vote means nothing and the EC means everything. Romney only needed to swing about 150,000-200,000 votes on average in all the states he lost to swing it his way.

 

[AntoneM]

Easy, depress turnout and increase his share among white voters and minorities. Its really simple guys for a Republican to win. Its not hard to swing 3-6 ponts in national election. The popular vote means nothing and the EC means everything. Romney only needed to swing about 150,000-200,000 votes on average in all the states he lost to swing it his way.

Totes gonna need a citation on this.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Easy, depress turnout and increase his share among white voters and minorities. Its really simple guys for a Republican to win. Its not hard to swing 3-6 ponts in national election. The popular vote means nothing and the EC means everything. Romney only needed to swing about 150,000-200,000 votes on average in all the states he lost to swing it his way.

Swinging the votes of several million voters is harder than you think.

The presidential election isn't conducted in a bubble. The fundamentals were so that Obama won relatively easily.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Swinging the votes of several million voters is harder than you think.

The presidential election isn't conducted in a bubble. The fundamentals were so that Obama won relatively easily.

So what do the fundamentals tell us currently about the state of both parties heading into 2016?

I argue they tell us this:

The Democratic party heading into 2016 has an advantage abeit a small won in regards to the presidency due to guaranteed higher turnout, demographics leaning Democratic and EC. They are however at their lowest point everywhere else since the 1920s with an emerging coalition that dosent vote in midterms.

The Republican party has a midterm advantage due to low turnout, older whiter constituency that reliably votes and full statewide control of 30 states. They however have a presidential disadvantage in EC and raw party vote totals among other emerging demographic changes in the electorate favoring the Democrats.

In a 2016 contest between Generic D vs Generic R, advantage should go to the Democrat however candidate and campaigns matter.

Hillary Clinton Vs Jeb Bush is different from a Hillary Clinton Vs Ted Cruz.

The question becomes this: Which candidate has the greatest chance of creating an electoral college realignment? One so great that either parties solid blue or red states become swing states.

Ex 1: Can Jeb Bush put NM in play and keep it in play for the next nominee should he either win or lose the presidency?

Ex 2: Can Hillary Clinton put Texas in play against Ted Cruz and keep it in play for the next nominee should she win?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Just want to say I think you're overestimating Jeb Bush as a candidate and New Mexico is not going to be in play.

Any argument the GOP might have against Hillary being same-old is instantly diffused by putting another Bush on the ballot.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Just want to say I think you're overestimating Jeb Bush as a candidate and New Mexico is not going to be in play.

Any argument the GOP might have against Hillary being same-old is instantly diffused by putting another Bush on the ballot.

I am confident that Jeb Bush will be the nominee and be competitive in NM. Trust me. I may not have been here long, but I am confident in Jeb Bush's potential threat to Hillary.

I mean, what's the worst that could happen with my bold prediction? Has any poligaffer been laughed out of here in the past that I am unware of in past elections based off of predicions?

 

[B-Dubs]

I am confident that Jeb Bush will be the nominee and be competitive in NM. Trust me. I may not have been here long, but I am confident in Jeb Bush's potential threat to Hillary.

I mean, what's the worst that could happen with my bold prediction? Has any poligaffer been laughed out of here in the past that I am unware of in past elections based off of predicions?

PD once lost an avatar bet due to a wrong prediction and was laughed at for months.

Your confidence is fine, just back it up with something.

 

[pigeon]

Both parties are gonna compete in WI and NV. They are swing states. No matter if Hillary is up 20pts in Wisconsin October 2016, it will still be a swing state.

We must have very different definitions then. Dosent swing denote "either way"? Nevada was a swing state in 2012. It could have gone for Romney.

I'm starting to seriously question your commitment to the English language.

Once again: if by swing state you mean "both parties will spend money in this state," then yes, they will probably be swing states, but it's a nearly meaningless category.

If by swing state you mean "the state has a reasonable chance to go either way," then neither of those states are going to be swing states.

Don't conflate the two definitions! Just because Romney spent money in Nevada in 2012 does not mean it had a chance to go for Romney. It did not.

Romney only needed to swing about 150,000-200,000 votes on average in all the states he lost to swing it his way.

This is a really stupid metric. Yes, if Romney got a fixed vote swing across all states, he'd easily win. But that's not something that could occur in nature, because different states have different voting populations.

In real life, you get percentage vote swings. Romney would've needed about a 2.7% vote swing to win. That's 3.5 million votes nationwide.

I mean, what's the worst that could happen with my bold prediction?

Well, people could start ignoring you on the principle that apparently you have no evidence or reasoning behind your assertions.

 

[Abinash117]

I know this is off topic on the current discussion, but what do people mean by 'limited government or limit the government' ? Are they talking about the executive branch of the government? Wouldn't that just limit the power of the president, especially if a Republican becomes president( people that usually say limit the government lean Republican ) ?

 

[Gotchaye]

I know this is off topic on the current discussion, but what do people mean by 'limited government or limit the government' ? Are they talking about the executive branch of the government? Wouldn't that just limit the power of the president, especially if a Republican becomes president( people that usually say limit the government lean Republican ) ?

No, usually the idea is that there ought to be limits on what the whole government can do. Like the First Amendment - there are laws the government isn't allowed to make. In modern US politics, the idea is that the government does too much and this is bad because it is inefficient or it crowds out more valuable community-based efforts to solve the same problems or it is simply a violation of someone's rights.

 

[Abinash117]

No, usually the idea is that there ought to be limits on what the whole government can do. Like the First Amendment - there are laws the government isn't allowed to make. In modern US politics, the idea is that the government does too much and this is bad because it is inefficient or it crowds out more valuable community-based efforts to solve the same problems or it is simply a violation of someone's rights.

How can you limit all 3 branches government, especially the judicial branch and the legislative branch? In the legislative branches case, make sure the bills are not able to effect the entire nation? Would that acquire literally to change the constitution in many cases, since it states that there are powers invested by the different branches in some of the amendments.

And who should take the up the role; state and local governments? They can be just as if not more inefficient and corrupt than the federal government.

I said that because it seems people refer to the executive branch and usually said by Republican congressmen and voters a lot and at the time when the executive branch do something they don't like, like regulations . Like if a Tea party guy was a president that federally bans gay marriage, supports bill and enact executive orders that uses language that has intentions to get rid of abortion, increase spending on the military , etc I doubt those same people would say 'limit the government' . Even then they don't seem in a hurry to limit the government, they just propose to cut spending on some areas and raise on others like the military.

No one really specifies the deals; it seems like buzzwords and a talking point.

 

[Ecotic]

How can you limit all 3 branches government, especially the judicial branch and the legislative branch?

In effect Congress has been growing weaker due to consistent legislative paralysis and because most of their members spend half their day or more on the phone fundraising instead of working. The vacuum has been taken up by federal agencies.

 

[B-Dubs]

.

No one really specifies the deals; it seems like buzzwords and a talking point.

Now you're getting it. They just want to limit the stuff they don't like, basically anything that helps the poor or middle-class.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I'm starting to seriously question your commitment to the English language.

Once again: if by swing state you mean "both parties will spend money in this state," then yes, they will probably be swing states, but it's a nearly meaningless category.

If by swing state you mean "the state has a reasonable chance to go either way," then neither of those states are going to be swing states.

Don't conflate the two definitions! Just because Romney spent money in Nevada in 2012 does not mean it had a chance to go for Romney. It did not.



This is a really stupid metric. Yes, if Romney got a fixed vote swing across all states, he'd easily win. But that's not something that could occur in nature, because different states have different voting populations.

In real life, you get percentage vote swings. Romney would've needed about a 2.7% vote swing to win. That's 3.5 million votes nationwide.



Well, people could start ignoring you on the principle that apparently you have no evidence or reasoning behind your assertions.

Well then, I guess that means I will have to take your advice so that wont happen. I agree with everything you wrote though. x)

I guess I get too hung up on the swing state dilemma and not realize the parties are gonna spend no matter the cost on states they perceive to have the chance to win even if its a small won.

 

[NeoXChaos]

PD once lost an avatar bet due to a wrong prediction and was laughed at for months.

Your confidence is fine, just back it up with something.

x) I will try and if I dont call me out on it.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Good morning guys. Here's a little laissez-faire silliness to start your day:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/marco-rubio-florida-insurance-market-117055.html?hp=t2_r

Rubio pushed his no-mandate health insurance exchange, dubbed Florida Health Choices, through the state Legislature that year. “It’s about competition, it’s about choice, and it’s about the marketplace,” he told The Palm Beach Post at the time.

Florida Health Choices, which finally opened last year, now covers 80 people.

 

[Coriolanus]

How can you limit all 3 branches government, especially the judicial branch and the legislative branch? In the legislative branches case, make sure the bills are not able to effect the entire nation? Would that acquire literally to change the constitution in many cases, since it states that there are powers invested by the different branches in some of the amendments.

Generally
The legislative can create laws and ammendments. Its power is kept in check by executive veto power, judicial decisions that it must abide by, and the discord caused by having so many cooks in the kitchen.
The executive runs stuff. It's power is kept in check by the legislative's capacity to change how much stuff it can run (and also how it should run said stuff), combined with the judiciary's capacity to (if provoked) tell them explicitly what they can or cannot do.
The judiciary cannot create laws or run stuff beyond itself, but it generally has final say in anything that is brought to it. Since it cannot start up cases against others, and needs issues to be brought to it by others, its power, while considerable, is at the same time immense and extremely limited.

A completely united legislative branch is by far the most powerful of the three. That very seldomly happens. By design.


Obv all of this exists outside of stuff like a prez or general seizing control of the military and going "fuck alla y'all"

 

[Plinko]

Good morning guys. Here's a little laissez-faire silliness to start your day:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/marco-rubio-florida-insurance-market-117055.html?hp=t2_r

LOL

Could have been worse.

He could have said he ate at Qdoba.

I may vote for Jeb just to spite you now.

 

[Black Republican]

out of the gop running for president do they have to give up there senate seat even if they lose the general election?

 

[adamsappel]

I guess I get too hung up on the swing state dilemma and not realize the parties are gonna spend no matter the cost on states they perceive to have the chance to win even if its a small won.

Parties and candidates have to spend some money in all states, even ones that are lost causes. Besides possibly getting independent votes, you don't want to piss off your base and let them just stay home. You spend more money in the states you think you have a chance to win.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

out of the gop running for president do they have to give up there senate seat even if they lose the general election?

Depends on state law. But I believe most do. Ryan was a rep but he ran for both

 

[theprodigy]

PD once lost an avatar bet due to a wrong prediction and was laughed at for months.

Your confidence is fine, just back it up with something.

yeah, force him onto an avatar bet so he doesn't have the same one I do! lol (well ok now mine is slightly different)

anyway this whole "swing state" thing reminds me of the media trying to pretend Michigan was in play last time

 

[Aaron Strife]

I may vote for Jeb just to spite you now.

Could be worse. You could write in Rick Snyder

 

[Abinash117]

Generally
The legislative can create laws and ammendments. Its power is kept in check by executive veto power, judicial decisions that it must abide by, and the discord caused by having so many cooks in the kitchen.
The executive runs stuff. It's power is kept in check by the legislative's capacity to change how much stuff it can run (and also how it should run said stuff), combined with the judiciary's capacity to (if provoked) tell them explicitly what they can or cannot do.
The judiciary cannot create laws or run stuff beyond itself, but it generally has final say in anything that is brought to it. Since it cannot start up cases against others, and needs issues to be brought to it by others, its power, while considerable, is at the same time immense and extremely limited.

A completely united legislative branch is by far the most powerful of the three. That very seldomly happens. By design.


Obv all of this exists outside of stuff like a prez or general seizing control of the military and going "fuck alla y'all"

I saying how can could you limit the government further than now . I already now most of that. I guess I didn't explain myself well.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I am confident that Jeb Bush will be the nominee and be competitive in NM. Trust me. I may not have been here long, but I am confident in Jeb Bush's potential threat to Hillary.

I mean, what's the worst that could happen with my bold prediction? Has any poligaffer been laughed out of here in the past that I am unware of in past elections based off of predicions?

I'll take this bet. Jeb won't be the nominee. And if he is he'll lose NM by at least 4 points.

 

[ivysaur12]

Obama only won Oregon by 12 points but I could see Jeb being competitive there

 

[Hobbestetrician]

Obama only won Oregon by 12 points but I could see Jeb being competitive there

Definitely a swing state.

 

[TacticalFox88]

You all talking about all these swing states and yet I have people on my FB page delusional enough to think that Walker or Bush could take California if they make the case hard enough.

The bubble is real.

 

[Aaron Strife]

You all talking about all these swing states and yet I have people on my FB page delusional enough to think that Walker or Bush could take California if they make the case hard enough.

The bubble is real.

People who don't follow electoral politics that closely tend to assume their neighborhood or whatever reflects the entire state.

Had several people call out my prediction map on FB for having Iowa as a blue state based on their relatives who live in rural communities.

 

[ivysaur12]

To go back to 538's analysis, no shit that it's going to be a competitive election. 2012 and even 2008 were competitive. But that doesn't make the wins any less decisive. I'm also sort of dubious towards using 2010 and 2014 as a model for 2016, and I think Walker's most recent poll numbers in WI against Clinton are evidence of that.

I also don't think it does much to say, yeah, the polls aren't close now, but they will be!!! when talking about empirical analysis. If the polls get close... they get close. That's the nature of elections.

 

[Aaron Strife]

To go back to 538's analysis, no shit that it's going to be a competitive election. 2012 and even 2008 were competitive. But that doesn't make the wins any less decisive. I'm also sort of dubious towards using 2010 and 2014 as a model for 2016, and I think Walker's most recent poll numbers in WI against Clinton are evidence of that.

It makes me wish state elections were held in presidential years, that's for sure.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Today, the Fifth Circuit heard argument in Texas v. U.S., the case challenging DAPA. The federal government is appealing the District Court's preliminary injunction against implementing DAPA. Hopefully they'll put up the audio soon, but I wouldn't hold my breath. The most recent oral argument recordings available on the Fifth Circuit's website are from April 9.

And now for some interesting Scalia comments. First, the boring stuff. I think we all know what he's talking about here:

"The rule for a good judge, in my estimation, is garbage in, garbage out," Scalia told a crowd of about 1,300 Thursday night at the Vada Sheid Community Development Center Auditorium. "If it indeed is a bad statute, I am honor bound by oath to produce a bad result. If you think that every statute that has been enacted across the street from me makes sense, you're crazy. It is not up to me to decide which are good ones and which are bad ones."

Then for the fun stuff. About the media:

"They don't like conservatives on the court, or anywhere else for that matter," he said. "They do a lousy job. You can't expect them to do a good job."

The reason, Scalia said, is that the law is complicated with many other cases referenced throughout court filings. The media don't have room for all that detail, and the public's not interested in it anyway, he said.

"You really can't expect them to write about that and sell newspapers," he said. "It's unfair to expect the press to get into the details of what the court does. You can't expect the press to discuss the real issues in the case. It's, 'Who won?'"

I have the same complaint, though I'd extend it to cover just about every legal topic. Then, about states' rights:

Scalia said people talk about "states' rights," but states' rights went away with the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which took the election of U.S. senators from state legislatures and gave it to the people of the states.

"So stop wringing your hands about states' rights," Scalia said. "They're gone."

I wonder what he means here? Does he mean that the only "states' right" in the Constitution was the legislatures' right to appoint Senators? Or does he simply mean what a number of conservative/libertarian commenters have argued--that the direct election of Senators took away the states' ability to meaningfully restrain federal power?

Finally, about oral arguments:

Scalia said he likes to hear oral arguments, and he sometimes makes decisions based on them.

"I'm a big fan of oral argument," he said. "It's very often when I go in, I'm on a knife's edge. A persuasive counsel can persuade me in a case."

I found this surprising. Contrast his "knife's edge" with Clarence Thomas, who considers oral argument superfluous.

 

[B-Dubs]

People who don't follow electoral politics that closely tend to assume their neighborhood or whatever reflects the entire state.

Had several people call out my prediction map on FB for having Iowa as a blue state based on their relatives who live in rural communities.

Well didn't you draw it on a bar napkin in crayon? That might have had something to do with it.

 

[Crisco]

Scalia will be an interesting historical footnote, that's for sure. I don't buy any of the bullshit jurisprudence he spews, the obvious political leanings in his decisions speak for themselves. Besides that, he seems like he'd be a fun dude to argue with on a message board.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Well didn't you draw it on a bar napkin in crayon? That might have had something to do with it.

Not the 2012 one.

But that is crayon.

Two comments:

You should go to Iowa sometime....they're VERY Republican there.

Despite what the polls are saying about Florida, I haven't seen a single Obama bumper sticker and I've seen a lot of Romney ones. We shall see.....

 

[Jackson50]

I am confident that Jeb Bush will be the nominee and be competitive in NM. Trust me. I may not have been here long, but I am confident in Jeb Bush's potential threat to Hillary.

I mean, what's the worst that could happen with my bold prediction? Has any poligaffer been laughed out of here in the past that I am unware of in past elections based off of predicions?

No, and there have been many hilariously bad predictions. The 2010 midterm elections were the worst. Plenty of members have been laughed out of here though.

Swinging the votes of several million voters is harder than you think.

The presidential election isn't conducted in a bubble. The fundamentals were so that Obama won relatively easily.

It's boring to talk about the fundamentals, but they will have far greater influence on the next election than bold visions or the vice presidential nominee. For Hillary to become the next president, the economy needs to awaken from its winter hibernation with renewed strength. A return to the growth of last summer would be a good start. Employment growth should also accelerate. And if robust growth persists into next year, Hillary would be difficult to defeat.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Scalia will be an interesting historical footnote, that's for sure.

I don't think Scalia's legacy is likely to be so minimal. Scalia has played an important role in shifting the Court's jurisprudence (and, consequently, that of lower courts) dramatically towards originalism and textualism. Not to reopen old wounds, but consider Halbig and King. Wherever the lower courts ended up in those cases, the way they got there was (or at least purported to be) through textualism. In cases like Heller and Citizens United, even the dissenting liberal justices pointed to the original meaning of the relevant Constitutional provisions as supporting their positions. So, however much you may hate him and the ideas he stands for, it's just wishful thinking to believe he'll amount to nothing more than a footnote in the history books.

 

[FLEABttn]

Ex 1: Can Jeb Bush put NM in play and keep it in play for the next nominee should he either win or lose the presidency?

Probably not.

I am confident that Jeb Bush will be the nominee and be competitive in NM.

I spent nearly 9 years of my life there and I feel you're hanging onto this "Jeb can relate to Hispanics thing" a little much. I mean, he'll do better than Mittens and McCain in the more rural counties but the state isn't going to glom onto him because he speaks Spanish. Yeah Susana Martinez won but it was a referendum on Richardson, she hardly ever had to address Denish as an actual candidate. Nearly half the state has Hispanic ancestry and so Hispanic politicians aren't exactly novel. The feel in 2010 wasn't jubilance for (another) Hispanic governor, Martinez had to defend against allegations she was a Tejano.

 

[HyperionX]

I don't think Scalia's legacy is likely to be so minimal. Scalia has played an important role in shifting the Court's jurisprudence (and, consequently, that of lower courts) dramatically towards originalism and textualism. Not to reopen old wounds, but consider Halbig and King. Wherever the lower courts ended up in those cases, the way they got there was (or at least purported to be) through textualism. In cases like Heller and Citizens United, even the dissenting liberal justices pointed to the original meaning of the relevant Constitutional provisions as supporting their positions. So, however much you may hate him and the ideas he stands for, it's just wishful thinking to believe he'll amount to nothing more than a footnote in the history books.

Scalia's most likely legacy is how his style of jurisprudence will come to an end. There is a distinct possibility that future courts will disregard this current era in the same way the Lochner Era was ultimately disregarded by future courts.

 

[ivysaur12]

Today, the Fifth Circuit heard argument in Texas v. U.S., the case challenging DAPA. The federal government is appealing the District Court's preliminary injunction against implementing DAPA. Hopefully they'll put up the audio soon, but I wouldn't hold my breath. The most recent oral argument recordings available on the Fifth Circuit's website are from April 9.

And now for some interesting Scalia comments. First, the boring stuff. I think we all know what he's talking about here:



Then for the fun stuff. About the media:



I have the same complaint, though I'd extend it to cover just about every legal topic. Then, about states' rights:



I wonder what he means here? Does he mean that the only "states' right" in the Constitution was the legislatures' right to appoint Senators? Or does he simply mean what a number of conservative/libertarian commenters have argued--that the direct election of Senators took away the states' ability to meaningfully restrain federal power?

Finally, about oral arguments:



I found this surprising. Contrast his "knife's edge" with Clarence Thomas, who considers oral argument superfluous.

This is all sort of fascinating, and kind of unexpected. Especially that last part on oral arguments.

 

[AndyD]

Has there been any discussion of Bush's "death panels" advance directive Medicare suggestion?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Scalia's most likely legacy is how his style of jurisprudence will come to an end. There is a distinct possibility that future courts will disregard this current era in the same way the Lochner Era was ultimately disregarded by future courts.

What makes you think so?

 

[HyperionX]

What makes you think so?

Why wouldn't it? A large number of major cases ended on 5-4 decisions that the liberal minority strongly dissented. It should be pretty evident that with 5 liberal judges, especially if it ever gets to 6 or 7 liberal judges, those 5-4 rulings would decisively swing the other way.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Why wouldn't it? A large number of major cases ended on 5-4 decisions that the liberal minority strongly dissented. It should be pretty evident that with 5 liberal judges, especially if it ever gets to 6 or 7 liberal judges, those 5-4 rulings would decisively swing the other way.

Well, sure, if five liberal justices wanted to overturn Citizens United or what-have-you, and were unconcerned with looking like partisan hacks for doing so, then they certainly could. But I don't think they're going to be able to easily undo the gains that originalism and textualism have made among the federal courts, and that's really what I'm referring to when I talk about Scalia's legacy.

 

[ivysaur12]

Well, sure, if five liberal justices wanted to overturn Citizens United or what-have-you, and were unconcerned with looking like partisan hacks for doing so, then they certainly could.

Depends on your definition of hackery.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Well, sure, if five liberal justices wanted to overturn Citizens United or what-have-you, and were unconcerned with looking like partisan hacks for doing so, then they certainly could. But I don't think they're going to be able to easily undo the gains that originalism and textualism have made among the federal courts, and that's really what I'm referring to when I talk about Scalia's legacy.

It's interesting, despite his (and your) protestations to the contrary, I would argue that Scalia's legacy is one not of jurisprudence, but of justifying political hackery with carefully constructed textual and originailist rationalizations.

So, no u. Basically.

 

[jamesinclair]

Posted without comment

Texas posted its first monthly decline in total jobs in more than four years. The state lost 25,400 jobs in March, according to the Texas Workforce Commission.

The last time Texas saw a decline in total employment was in September 2010 when it lost 600 jobs that month. The worst year for job losses was 2009 when Texas lost 371,300 jobs.

http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2...ain-streak-and-posts-its-first-job-loss.html/

California employers added 39,800 jobs in March, and the state's unemployment rate fell to 6.5% -- its lowest level in seven years.

The job gains last month marked nearly four years of consecutive monthly increases in California, which has seen employment increase at a rate of 3.1% over the last year -- faster than the national average of 2.3%.

The national unemployment rate is 5.5%. Last month, California's unemployment rate was 6.7%, and last March it was 7.9%.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-jobs-20150417-story.html

After adding jobs for eight months in a row, New Jersey lost 6,400 jobs in March, state labor officials said Thursday. The unemployment rate ticked up to 6.5 percent, remaining above the national rate of 5.5 percent.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/bus...6-5-as-it-loses-6-400-jobs-in-march-1.1310895

Wisconsin's unemployment rate has dropped to 4.6 percent, its lowest point since before the recession.

The state Department of Workforce Development reported Thursday that the unemployment dropped from 4.8 percent in February to 4.6 percent in March.

Private-sector job creation plunged, with 5,000 jobs lost in the monthlong timeframe.

http://www.startribune.com/local/300146441.html


When will Governor Brown enter the presidential race?

 

[ivysaur12]

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/report_personal_income_increases_but_hurdles_remain/

Personal income in Connecticut grew 3.7 percent between the fourth quarter of 2013 and the fourth quarter of 2014, while most of the rest of the Northeast saw more sizable gains, according to a report out this week.

Connecticut’s growth outpaced New Jersey’s 3.4 percent increase and Maine’s 3.1 percent gain, but every other state in the region - Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and Pennsylvania - saw personal income grow by more than 4 percent last year, according to Wells Fargo Securities’ 2015 Economic Outlook for the region.

Problem with Connecticut is a similar issue with New Jersey -- a lot of the business centers in Connecticut are based around New York and Boston, and Hartford instead really the insurance magnet it once was.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Depends on your definition of hackery.

It's interesting, despite his (and your) protestations to the contrary, I would argue that Scalia's legacy is one not of jurisprudence, but of justifying political hackery with carefully constructed textual and originailist rationalizations.

So, no u. Basically.

I'm not saying they would be hacks. I'm just saying they'd look like hacks. If they think the Court's legitimacy can take that hit, then they can make the move.

In the end, I don't think that the conservative or liberal justices hold the jurisprudential views they do on account of their political beliefs. Neither originalism nor textualism is inherently conservative, since the original meaning of a text can be non-conservative.

Also, Black Mamba and Piecake, your services are needed in the "one percent" thread. Those yokels think it has something to do with income, rather than wealth!

 

[HyperionX]

Well, sure, if five liberal justices wanted to overturn Citizens United or what-have-you, and were unconcerned with looking like partisan hacks for doing so, then they certainly could.

As others have alluded to, the Citizens United decision is already seen as partisan hackery, not to mention being extremely unpopular. Combined with the strong dissent of the liberal minority of the court, they are unlikely to care how they are viewed for overturning it, assuming there would even be much criticism in the first place.

But I don't think they're going to be able to easily undo the gains that originalism and textualism have made among the federal courts, and that's really what I'm referring to when I talk about Scalia's legacy.

They will if those decisions are guaranteed to be overturned by the supreme court. They would have to rule in a way that's consistent with a liberal court.