The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

[FireNexus]

Miguel Faria, who came over with with the families of other Batitsta cronies/supporters fleeing Castro, was a practicing doctor in Macon. And, an ardent racist and far-right winger.

Just to name an example.

As I said, not every white man without a college degree is an idiot racist, and not everyone with a degree is unracist. A clear correlation has been exposed, however. And I see this as a white man who is currently without a degree.

[FireNexus]

At this point I'm meditating on an attempt to beam racial slurs into Trump's head so he says them at a rally. If Trump says the N-Word and follows it up with a claim that non-whites are inferior today, I will warn you to never get on my bad side.

[Q99]

It really looks like Hillary has seized Nevada

I say again that it's highly unlikely Trump holds 90 percent of the GOP base while polling is showing Hillary doing so. But I have included scenarios where they both hold 90 and 80. Either one looks bleak for Trump. And if he holds only 80 and she holds 90 and he wins indies by 30 (!) points, Trump would be winning Nevada by....1,000 votes.

Other scenarios:

Both hold 90 percent of base and Trump wins indies by 10: 48-46, Clinton

Both hold 90 percent of base and Trump wins indies by 20: Clinton by 4,000 votes

Both hold 80 percent of base and Trump wins indies by 10: 46-44, Clinton

Both hold 80 percent of base and Trump wins indies by 20: 49-45, Trump

So he can win Nevada. But Trump would need base numbers and indie numbers that seem unlikely right now. That's why the Republicans hope to change the electoral makeup on Election Day, something they were unable to achieve in 2012.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hard to see Trump winning without Nevada, so if so, that's very good news.

[Q99]

Hard to see Trump winning without Nevada, so if so, that's very good news.

Yea, iirc that cuts off like 3/4ths of his victory paths (hard to remember all the twitter chatter from the data people, but something like that).



Also, Trump's support has dipped some, and Hillary voters have an enthusiasm edge again

Enthusiasm has followed a far more variable path in Clinton’s case than in Trump’s. As few as 36 percent of her supporters, in mid-September, were very enthusiastic about their choice. That advanced to 52 percent by the start of tracking, apparently motivated by controversy over Trump’s sexual conduct. Clinton’s strong enthusiasm then lost 7 points after the Comey letter announcing a renewed email investigation, only to rebound now.

Strong enthusiasm for Trump among his supporters has followed a steadier path recently, after peaking at 55 percent, in mid-September and sliding to 47 percent three weeks later. It’s held between 49 and 53 percent since.

And she has better party unification:

Support for Trump has weakened a bit among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, down to 82 percent support in this group, near his low; 6 percent are going to Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. Clinton, by contrast, has support from 87 percent of leaned Democrats, with just 2 percent to Johnson.

Note a *lot* of early voting assumptions are based on party and/or exit polling and not actual counting, so things could possibly be better than they look (or tighter, but still).

[The Romulan Republic]

fivethirtyeight has been updating its projections very frequently the last couple of days, but I note that their isn't a lot of movement. It seems like whatever was causing the Clinton drop off, its stabilizing/leveling out. I hope.

Obviously only a fool would presume anything in this race, but I doubt we'll see much change before election day now, and I think that Clinton will probably win. The question is by how much.

Their seem to be three really close states now (by which I mean between 40 and 60% chance to go to Clinton): Nevada, North Carolina, and Florida. Barring a surprise, how many of those go to Clinton will determine the scope of her victory.

Gut feeling guess: maybe I'm being too optimistic, but from what I've heard, and my best guess, I say we take all three, plus New Hampshire of course, with no loss of an EC vote in Maine.

Clinton win with 323 EC votes.

Feel free to laugh if that prediction is wrong.

[Lost Soal]

North Carolina just had a very suspect voter purge overturned.
Think Progress

Three counties in North Carolina are canceling the voter registration of thousands of eligible residents— most of them African-American Democrats — just days before the 2016 election. On Monday, the North Carolina conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) sued the state and demanded an immediate stop to the practice, which they dubbed “a coordinated effort right out of the GOP playbook to suppress the black vote in the state.”

The lawsuit charges that Beaufort, Moore, and Cumberland counties are challenging voters’ eligibility with no other evidence than a single piece of mail that was sent to their home and bounced back as undelivered. Many of those challenged and flagged for purging, like James Edward Arthur Sr., have moved within the same county and remain legally allowed to vote. Others still live at their original registration address and fell victim to a simple postal-service error.

Arthur, who is African American and lives in a nursing home, grew up in Beaufort County and has voted in at least 14 elections. He testified that he did not receive any notice from the state or the county that his voter registration had been challenged or that he would be required to attend a hearing to keep his right to vote.

“If I knew my right to vote was in jeopardy, I would do whatever I could to protect it,” he said. “I want and plan to vote in the upcoming election, but I am concerned that since my registration has been canceled I will not be able to cast a ballot or it will not be counted.”

“If I knew my right to vote was in jeopardy, I would do whatever I could to protect it.”

The lawsuit says North Carolina is violating the National Voter Registration Act, which bans the systemic removal of voters from the rolls in the final 90 days before an election. State officials have defended the practice, claiming that the challenges have been brought individually against thousands of people rather than in a systemic manner.

But the NAACP is also accusing Republicans of conducting a coordinated mailing campaign in the first place in order to challenge the voting eligibility of thousands of people who don’t receive the mailing. Shane Hubers, a Republican who ran for local office last year, challenged the registration of dozens of voters — the majority of them Democrats — in Beaufort County. In Cumberland County, a single individual used returned mail to challenge the registrations of 3,951 voters. In Moore County, N. Carol Wheeldon, the secretary of the local Republican Party, challenged approximately 400 registered voters.

Penda Hair, the lead attorney for the NAACP in the lawsuit, said while she cannot yet prove a conspiracy, “We know that in two of the counties, the people who brought the challenges had connections to the local Republican Party. We also know that the pattern of these challenges is very similar across the the counties.”

In Moore County, Hair added, “the return address of a right-wing group called the Voter Integrity Project appeared on the piece of mail that was used to challenge voters.”

“This is a very pernicious treatment of voters,” she said.

The lawsuit also notes that a disproportionate number of those challenged are black. For instance, African Americans make up only 25.9 percent of the population in Beaufort County, but account for more than 65 percent of the voter eligibility challenges.

“We are seeing the worst attempts of voter suppression here in North Carolina that we’ve seen since the days of Jim Crow,” Rev. Dr. William Barber, the president of the state NAACP, told reporter on Monday. “The Tar Heel state is ground zero in the intentional, surgical efforts to suppress the voice of voters. These attempts are a direct affront to our Constitution.”

The NAACP is demanding the state put all voters challenged since 2012 using this process back on the rolls immediately, notify them that they have been reinstated, and allow them to cast regular ballots early or on Election Day. They are requesting an emergency hearing this week to decide the case.

These new charges come just days after a federal court found the state violating the National Voter Registration Act in another manner: by failing to add tens of thousands of voters to the rolls who registered at a DMV over the past few years. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs ordered the state to allow these voters to cast provisional ballots.

On Wednesday morning, the U.S. Justice Department filed a brief in support of the NAACP lawsuit. They argue that the National Voter Registration Act “does not permit a jurisdiction to purge voters based solely on mail returned as undeliverable,” and not that “registration challenges” are one of the “manipulative devices and practices that historically had been employed to deny the vote to blacks.”

UPDATE: The federal district court sided with the NAACP late Friday afternoon, calling for an immediate halt to the purge and ordering the state to put the illegally purged voters back on the rolls. During the hearing, Judge Loretta C. Biggs called the purge “insane” and said it “sounds like something that was put together in 1901.”

“The evidence in this case demonstrates why Congress prohibited the systematic removal of the names of voters so close to an election,” she wrote in her ruling. “Denying an eligible voter her constitutional right to vote and to have that vote counted will always constitute irreparable harm.”

[The Romulan Republic]

Considering how close NC looks to be, this decision might well have just kept the far Right from stealing the state.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ugg, for some reasons fivethirtyeight's Senate forecasts have seriously tightened as well. Much closer than the Presidential forecasts, actually. They still favour Clinton, but its worrying.

I really hope we don't lose our chance at the Senate, because if that happens their is not only a serious question as to weather we'll have a full Supreme Court in at least the next two years, but a serious question as to weather Clinton will even be able to appoint a Cabinet, or avoid a partisan removal from office.

[Q99]

Ugg, for some reasons fivethirtyeight's Senate forecasts have seriously tightened as well. Much closer than the Presidential forecasts, actually. They still favour Clinton, but its worrying.

I do note if they continue at the current angle, she'll still end up above 50%... and note, they have Nevada at 50%.



They are extending voting hours in Nevada because the lines of Hispanic voters just. aren't. shrinking.

if you assume Nevada at a higher percentage due to the early voting results suggesting it (which I do *not* believe 538's model includes), then Trump's numbers drop.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, I'm hopeful about Nevada.

It also occurs to me that a very close Senate gives the progressives a great deal of power.

We can safely assume a rabidly obstructionist Republican Party, so for Clinton to get anything through the Senate, she will need the support of all of the Democratic Senators. This means that she will have to continue working with the progressives.

This is a very strong argument, in my opinion, for any uncertain Bernie supporters to get on board with the Democrats.

If its 50/50 though... well, Kaine gets to be a very active VP.

[Flagg]

Apparently at a Rapist Donnie Douchebag rally the crowd started chanting "execute her" in regards to Clinton. Classy.

[Q99]

Yeah, I'm hopeful about Nevada.

Daily margin above 2012's

It also occurs to me that a very close Senate gives the progressives a great deal of power.

We can safely assume a rabidly obstructionist Republican Party, so for Clinton to get anything through the Senate, she will need the support of all of the Democratic Senators. This means that she will have to continue working with the progressives.

This is a very strong argument, in my opinion, for any uncertain Bernie supporters to get on board with the Democrats.

If its 50/50 though... well, Kaine gets to be a very active VP.

Also, Hillary is surprisingly good at working with opponents and knows *all* the tricks to getting stuff done, even better than Obama.

I mean, I expected this'd be a 'hold the line' president. The landslide hopes were there for a bit, but another Obama-esque win was what I was expecting whether it was Hillary or Biden. This president will continue to chip away and slowly make progress, until time does it's work and the Republicans lose power for real.

[The Romulan Republic]

Pretty much, yeah.

I see this election not so much as a big win for progressives, as just keeping the ship afloat until we're in a stronger position and can try again.

But its no less important that we do succeed now, if we want to be in a position to keep moving forward. Its an ongoing process, and every step matters.

[Q99]

Sometimes you need a small win to set up a big win- Trumpite crowds are unlikely to come back for whoever's next, they've shown to not have that much wider loyalty. Huge hispanic registration and shift left *will* stay.

And endorsements continue to come for Hillary from unexpected sources: National Review Column by Mona Chare, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center- "A potentially impeachable Hillary may be better than Trump". Still National Review and conservative, but National Review is printing people giving Hillary endorsements 3 days before election day. Wow.

The Economist, a European-focused newspaper, endorses her with “a better candidate than she seems and better suited to cope with the awful, broken state of Washington politics than her critics will admit.”- and they do this despite disliking her tax and TPP policies. Also, y'know, noting they can't actually vote for her but if they could they would.

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah. I suspect that one big thing the Trump campaign has accomplished is to convince a lot of blacks and Hispanics that the old-white-guy faction at the core of the Republican Party is basically willing to support the Antichrist. My informal perception based on a fairly large sample size of people I know is that if there is such a thing as a negative-number approval rating, it would be a good way to describe Trump's standing among African-Americans, and I doubt he's more popular among Latinos.

That's going to seriously dent the Republicans' credibility with those minorities, and said minorities are growing.

Yeah, I'm hopeful about Nevada.

It also occurs to me that a very close Senate gives the progressives a great deal of power.

We can safely assume a rabidly obstructionist Republican Party, so for Clinton to get anything through the Senate, she will need the support of all of the Democratic Senators. This means that she will have to continue working with the progressives.

She will also have to work with the moderates, and that means the moderates and progressives will have to work with each other.

As I understand it, the big reason we have the ACA (as opposed to the right-wing alternative of "nothing" or the left-wing alternative of "single-payer") is that it represents the maximum that Obama could get past Democratic senators who were honestly worried about being voted out of office by right-leaning independents flocking against them.

That's still going to be a factor.

[The Romulan Republic]

Granted.

I don't expect the progressives to get everything we want. Nor would I wish to see us become another faction of mindless obstructionists.

But we will have major leverage in a narrowly Democratic Senate, and I expect Bernie, Warren, etc. to use it to ensure that at least, the main progressive points on the Democratic platform are adhered to, that we get strongly anti-Citizens United Justices, and that we get a cabinet that has progressive members, a Secretary of State and Secretary of Defence who are not excessively hawkish, and an Attorney General who will not be a rubber-stamp for any legally dubious thing Clinton might decide to do.

[Mr Bean]

But we will have major leverage in a narrowly Democratic Senate, and I expect Bernie, Warren, etc. to use it to ensure that at least, the main progressive points on the Democratic platform are adhered to, that we get strongly anti-Citizens United Justices, and that we get a cabinet that has progressive members, a Secretary of State and Secretary of Defence who are not excessively hawkish, and an Attorney General who will not be a rubber-stamp for any legally dubious thing Clinton might decide to do.

I hereby Predict that none of those things will happen. The Democrats will have zero leverage in the Senate as the Republicans triple down on obstruction via filbuster rules which again when the new Democratic Senate meets in Janurary will not change the filibuster rules like they failed to do in 2008 or 2010 (When such changes can be passed by simple 50 vote requests). Further while the cabinet will have progressive members they won't be in State, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce or Interior, ie the big important ones.

I'm less sure how the Supreme Court Justices thing will go since that one at least is something public pressure might do something about.

At the end of the day at her heart of hearts Secretary Clinton is a conservative like her husband. Not in the political sense but in the planning and outlook, she's not a gambler or big dreamer. She's quite content with the 2% positive change and call it a day never struggling for more. She has always been on the side pushing for more compromise even when the Republicans were proclaiming their divine mandate to resist.

[Tribun]

Something that made me scratch my head:

I did read several pieces that vehemently spoke out against early voting. What't the problem there? After all, next to all European States have that for decades (only it's all either done by mail or you deliver it to the office yourself, no early voting stations) without any problems (I'm German and it's all done by mail). Is that some kind of American sensibility at work?

[Knife]

Powers that be don't like it because they can't do a late election scare dump and move the vote through fear or emotion.

[Q99]

Something that made me scratch my head:

I did read several pieces that vehemently spoke out against early voting. What't the problem there? After all, next to all European States have that for decades (only it's all either done by mail or you deliver it to the office yourself, no early voting stations) without any problems (I'm German and it's all done by mail). Is that some kind of American sensibility at work?

Whenever something seems to go to one party, the other'll object. Or, I should say, the Republicans will object, it's invariably them.

Here, in some states, it's pretty much required due to spread out populations anyway.

[Gaidin]

Something that made me scratch my head:

I did read several pieces that vehemently spoke out against early voting. What't the problem there? After all, next to all European States have that for decades (only it's all either done by mail or you deliver it to the office yourself, no early voting stations) without any problems (I'm German and it's all done by mail). Is that some kind of American sensibility at work?

Both sides that have their states and people that they can get to vote early dependably and for them dependably literally call it banking votes. A huge chunk of a swing state like Nevada has given Clinton a lead if swing state poll calls are to be believed. Florida was something of a dead heat(but rumor has it there was a lot of party crossing at the presidential level, though not at down-ballot for republican voters). Those votes, many of them were cast before Comey did his thing and the mess was made and Clinton had to start playing a more defensive strategy. Which means odds are unless there's a method in place in these states for them to walk in on election day and they trash your early vote and you vote again...that vote is just solidly in there and there's nothing the other side can do.

Literally what Knife said, just applied.

[Simon_Jester]

At the end of the day at her heart of hearts Secretary Clinton is a conservative like her husband. Not in the political sense but in the planning and outlook, she's not a gambler or big dreamer. She's quite content with the 2% positive change and call it a day never struggling for more. She has always been on the side pushing for more compromise even when the Republicans were proclaiming their divine mandate to resist.

Pure speculation follows:

Clinton has always been on someone else's team. It's one thing to advocate for conservative, measured steps when it isn't you whose reputation and legacy are being judged. It's another thing when YOU are the one being blocked at every turn, when you personally are being spat on every time the opposition screams defiance and eternal intent to stop you from accomplishing anything.

While this is far from a certainty, I can imagine Clinton wanting to push a little harder now, knowing just how thoroughly pointless her presidency may become if she doesn't push harder than Obama did.

But she may well not do that- it's pure speculation.

[Q99]

Hillary Clinton's Quiet Revolution

An article about how while an incrementalist, Hillary's plans add up to something quite ambitious.

The idea of Bernie pushing her left is actually pretty silly- Hillary Clinton is going to be the one pushing things to the left of her own initiative.

[SolarpunkFan]

At this point I'm meditating on an attempt to beam racial slurs into Trump's head so he says them at a rally. If Trump says the N-Word and follows it up with a claim that non-whites are inferior today, I will warn you to never get on my bad side.

If that fails, try doing this! https://youtu.be/iplfWUtKMzI