Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The restoration of Florida felons voting rights could tip the

13»

Comments

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    rcs1000 said:

    If we assume that 40% of these people exercise their right to vote in 2020, and that they break 75:25 to the Democrats, then it adds just under 300,000 Democrat votes net. That would probably have changed the Senate race yesterday.

    However, are we sure that the Democrats will continue to be the party of felons? Perhaps the Republicans will capture that demographic going forward.

    Aren’t they more likely (making a wild assumption) to be concentrated in cities - so already democrat voting districts?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    Sessions was absolutely craven to resign.

    Should have made Trump fire him.

    I've never quite understood why so many people are willing to resign when they are clearly being fired. I get there can be consequences to standing their ground and making the boss formally fire them, particularly politically, but that's not always going to be the case and it doesn't fool anyone anyway, it just makes the media reporting more unintentionally hilarious as they have to avoid the word sacked. From the last time someone was 'asked to resign' that seems to be the level where the media are comfortable to call it a sacking though.
    MONEY and lots of it if they fall on their sword , zilch if they don't.
    Yeah, but often these people are already very rich. Take the sacking for a change.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    Given the real life going’s on, for those who haven’t seen season 6 of house of cards ...it is going to seem very tame in comparison.

    I've not watched season 5 yet, should I binge watch them?

    I've got another five and a half months of gardening leave to use up.
    I guess so...given you ain’t much else going on. Season 6 is terrible, season 5 no where near as good as the first 2 or 3.

    You could go on a manhole cover tour instead....
    If anyone could recommend any stuff to binge watch I'd be grateful.

    I've got access to Sky, Netflix, and Amazon Prime.
    The first season of True Detective is very fine television.

    Arrow is utter crap (I say after watching 7 episodes) .
    Watched True Detective.

    The Arrowverse is awesome.
    If Homicide:Life on the Street is available then you should definitely watch that.

    Seriously though Arrow is a garbage fire of bad writing and bad acting in season 1 so far.
    Just focus on Felicity.
    You’d probably enjoy Into the Badlands.
    Undemanding fun.

  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    If we assume that 40% of these people exercise their right to vote in 2020, and that they break 75:25 to the Democrats, then it adds just under 300,000 Democrat votes net. That would probably have changed the Senate race yesterday.

    However, are we sure that the Democrats will continue to be the party of felons? Perhaps the Republicans will capture that demographic going forward.

    Aren’t they more likely (making a wild assumption) to be concentrated in cities - so already democrat voting districts?
    What difference does that make in a presidential race? None!
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    I have never even heard of the programmes you’ve all been mentioning.

    When the hell do you find the time to watch all this stuff???

    Lots of good documentaries on the radio iplayer.

    Insomnia + in my home office I have one of my monitors often with shows going while I code.
    I can just about manage Gardeners World (1 hour) and the racing - when they’re on. But far too many other things to be doing/reading to be watching TV. I barely even watch the news. Maybe the odd history documentary on BBC4.

    When not working I’d much much rather be out of doors. And if too dark for that, lots of reading to catch up on.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    I presume everyone has watched The Wire?

    It's one of those shows I remember being great, truly great, yet have not felt the urge to rewatch since it concluded.
    Because it is depressing. Not escapist. Has anyone ever re-read Jude the Obscure? No. It's too sad, even if it is a masterpiece.

    I've probably watched the Lord of the Rings Movies three or four times. Absurd inane escapism, but great for long haul flights with lots of free booze.
    Because we are too menny....

    I loathe Hardy. Some fine poetry, though.

    “Woman, much missed.
    How you call to me, call to me.
    Saying that now you are not as you were
    When once you were all to me.”

    Or something like that......
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Foxy said:

    Some good news, but sad for Pakistan making asylum nessecary.

    https://twitter.com/abidhussayn/status/1060278669678182405?s=19

    That is good news. But let’s keep up the pressure on Pakistan to treat the rest of its Christian minority with civilized decency.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    Some good news, but sad for Pakistan making asylum nessecary.

    https://twitter.com/abidhussayn/status/1060278669678182405?s=19

    That is good news. But let’s keep up the pressure on Pakistan to treat the rest of its Christian minority with civilized decency.
    Fat Chance of that ever happening
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    q
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    I have never even heard of the programmes you’ve all been mentioning.

    When the hell do you find the time to watch all this stuff???

    Lots of good documentaries on the radio iplayer.

    Insomnia + in my home office I have one of my monitors often with shows going while I code.
    I can just about manage Gardeners World (1 hour) and the racing - when they’re on. But far too many other things to be doing/reading to be watching TV. I barely even watch the news. Maybe the odd history documentary on BBC4.

    When not working I’d much much rather be out of doors. And if too dark for that, lots of reading to catch up on.
    There is your explanation - you garden.
    In another life, I might.
    There just isn’t enough time for everything - I’ve become a lot pickier about what I read since the knowledge that there are just too many book for one lifetime sank in (and the internet meant you didn’t have to start a book to find out whether or not you might want to read it)...

    Television is good in that unless it’s either subtitled, or really very good indeed, you can do other stuff while it’s on.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Cyclefree said:

    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    kle4 said:

    Alistair said:

    I presume everyone has watched The Wire?

    It's one of those shows I remember being great, truly great, yet have not felt the urge to rewatch since it concluded.
    Because it is depressing. Not escapist. Has anyone ever re-read Jude the Obscure? No. It's too sad, even if it is a masterpiece.

    I've probably watched the Lord of the Rings Movies three or four times. Absurd inane escapism, but great for long haul flights with lots of free booze.
    Because we are too menny....

    I loathe Hardy. Some fine poetry, though.

    “Woman, much missed.
    How you call to me, call to me.
    Saying that now you are not as you were
    When once you were all to me.”

    Or something like that......
    ...Thus I; faltering forward,
    Leaves around me falling,
    Wind oozing thin through the thorn from norward,
    And the woman calling.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,881
    dixiedean said:


    Learning Chinese is a long-term proposition.

    We language teachers call learning Mandarin "The Six Year Lesson in Humility".
  • Please form an orderly queue....

    An award-winning artist has invited the public to deface her £10,000 portrait of Boris Johnson, whom she accuses of putting political ambition before the interests of the UK.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6364805/Painter-invites-public-deface-10-000-portrait-Boris-Johnson.html
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Anazina said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    If we assume that 40% of these people exercise their right to vote in 2020, and that they break 75:25 to the Democrats, then it adds just under 300,000 Democrat votes net. That would probably have changed the Senate race yesterday.

    However, are we sure that the Democrats will continue to be the party of felons? Perhaps the Republicans will capture that demographic going forward.

    Aren’t they more likely (making a wild assumption) to be concentrated in cities - so already democrat voting districts?
    What difference does that make in a presidential race? None!
    Lucky we were discussing Senatorial races then I suppose
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    If we assume that 40% of these people exercise their right to vote in 2020, and that they break 75:25 to the Democrats, then it adds just under 300,000 Democrat votes net. That would probably have changed the Senate race yesterday.

    However, are we sure that the Democrats will continue to be the party of felons? Perhaps the Republicans will capture that demographic going forward.

    Aren’t they more likely (making a wild assumption) to be concentrated in cities - so already democrat voting districts?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Foxy said:

    SeanT said:

    Foxy said:

    SeanT said:

    Given the real life going’s on, for those who haven’t seen season 6 of house of cards ...it is going to seem very tame in comparison.

    I've not watched season 5 yet, should I binge watch them?

    I've got another five and a half months of gardening leave to use up.
    I guess so...given you ain’t much else going on. Season 6 is terrible, season 5 no where near as good as the first 2 or 3.

    You could go on a manhole cover tour instead....
    FFS how disappointing is the Haunting of Hill House? I heard this was a Netflix masterpiece,
    I need to download! And my iPad is empty.
    Black Earth Rising & Killing Eve both very good. The latest series of The Bridge was very good - Saga is one of the best detectives ever.

    The Little Drummer Girl first episode seemed very slow but by the end of Ep 2 we were fully hooked (don't think you can download the whole series yet though)

    Black Earth Rising was really well done, covering both the worst and best of africa, and of western intervention there. A really interesting exploration of a very dark and ambiguous period of history, and it's echoes over the decades. The acting and graphics were superb, though the story difficult. Plenty of interesting and haunting themes.

    Doing Money on BBC was a one off on Monday, but also very compelling viewing.

    If you want to learn about Africa can I recommend a book (yes, an actual book): Dictatorland.

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dictatorland-Men-Who-Stole-Africa/dp/1784972134

    It's totally terrific, and gripping and shocking, and full of WTF details, like the best history should be.

    If you're ever going to Africa, pack it or download it.
    I have been to Africa many times, for both work and pleasure, but that does sound an interesting read. I love Africa, but it can be an uncomfortable place to confront the darkness of history.

    You might find this one interesting, written as a travelogue over land and history:

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Exterminate-All-Brutes-Sven-Lindqvist/dp/1862075085

    Some of his other books are worth seeking out too, particularly Desert Divers.

    On South Africa at the end of Apartheid, I recommend Rian Malan's "My Traitors Heart"

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/My-Traitors-Heart-African-Explores/dp/0099749009

    Thanks for the book recommendations.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    If we assume that 40% of these people exercise their right to vote in 2020, and that they break 75:25 to the Democrats, then it adds just under 300,000 Democrat votes net. That would probably have changed the Senate race yesterday.

    However, are we sure that the Democrats will continue to be the party of felons? Perhaps the Republicans will capture that demographic going forward.

    Aren’t they more likely (making a wild assumption) to be concentrated in cities - so already democrat voting districts?
    That shouldn't matter to the Senate elections.
  • They have video cameras in a Press Conference - who knew?

    https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1060338700645777408
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    AndyJS said:

    Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.

    The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.

    The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.
    Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Sounds like a very positive change.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    The AG has the legal authority to share details of Grand Jury investigations with the President:
    https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/11/07/matt-whitaker-has-authority-to-share-proceedings-of-national-security-grand-jury-investigations-with-trump/

    Without any paper trail.

    Trump,just appointed an acting AG , who judging by his previous comments is a tool of the president, without the usual Senate oversight (which would have ben required had Sessions been formally sacked rather than bowing to pressure to resign.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    Nigelb said:

    The AG has the legal authority to share details of Grand Jury investigations with the President:
    https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/11/07/matt-whitaker-has-authority-to-share-proceedings-of-national-security-grand-jury-investigations-with-trump/

    Without any paper trail.

    Trump,just appointed an acting AG , who judging by his previous comments is a tool of the president, without the usual Senate oversight (which would have ben required had Sessions been formally sacked rather than bowing to pressure to resign.

    Fixed it for you...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    England 111/3 at lunch. Is that mythical sub continent test win in sight at last? 250 lead is probably enough already but they will want another 100.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    AndyJS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.

    The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.
    Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.
    Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,
  • Jonathan said:

    AndyJS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.

    The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.
    Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.
    Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,
    Surely greater participation in a democracy must be a "good thing" - even if it leads to results we personally don't like?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    DavidL said:

    England 111/3 at lunch. Is that mythical sub continent test win in sight at last? 250 lead is probably enough already but they will want another 100.

    And Rangana Herath will want three more wickets.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    England 111/3 at lunch. Is that mythical sub continent test win in sight at last? 250 lead is probably enough already but they will want another 100.

    And Rangana Herath will want three more wickets.
    I fancy his chances. He's a very fine bowler in these conditions and as we move into the main part of England's batting strength there are perhaps fewer really good players of spin, even if they seem to value their wickets more.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    Jonathan said:

    AndyJS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.

    The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.
    Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.
    Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,
    Surely greater participation in a democracy must be a "good thing" - even if it leads to results we personally don't like?
    That was the conventional wisdom, but I fear that it is not born out by evidence When people were happy, the govt was competent and the opposition viable, they tended to vote less.

    With major problems, angry, nasty polarised politics, universal fear and useless governments they turnout.

    Low turnout isn’t necessarily a problem - so long as you retain the power to turnout when it goes wrong.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    AndyJS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.

    The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.
    Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.
    Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,
    Surely greater participation in a democracy must be a "good thing" - even if it leads to results we personally don't like?
    That was the conventional wisdom, but I fear that it is not born out by evidence When people were happy, the govt was competent and the opposition viable, they tended to vote less.

    With major problems, angry, nasty polarised politics, universal fear and useless governments they turnout.

    Low turnout isn’t necessarily a problem - so long as you retain the power to turnout when it goes wrong.
    It's an interesting argument but low turnout is usually a sign of lethargy, disengagement and indifference. No matter who you vote for the government always gets in.

    Higher turnout driven by deep divisions and polarisation can be somewhat problematic too but on balance I think it is better because at least people are engaged in the process.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    AndyJS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.

    The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.
    Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.
    Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,
    Surely greater participation in a democracy must be a "good thing" - even if it leads to results we personally don't like?
    That was the conventional wisdom, but I fear that it is not born out by evidence When people were happy, the govt was competent and the opposition viable, they tended to vote less.

    With major problems, angry, nasty polarised politics, universal fear and useless governments they turnout.

    Low turnout isn’t necessarily a problem - so long as you retain the power to turnout when it goes wrong.
    Not sure I agree. Trump in the White house is clearly a problem for many - his approach has certainly encouraged polarisation and he now faces a very hostile press. To an extent I'm not happy when the press make themselves the story though - the question none seem willing to ask is how this man became President? There has been a huge failure of the political and media class to engage with the thoughts and worries of many people. Too easy to condemn them as out of touch and ignorant - just as we've seen with Brexit. The anger of the dispossessed of course is nothing new - but that of the 'entitled m/c establishment' has and continues to be just as ugly.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited November 2018
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    AndyJS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.

    The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.
    Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.
    Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,
    Surely greater participation in a democracy must be a "good thing" - even if it leads to results we personally don't like?
    That was the conventional wisdom, but I fear that it is not born out by evidence When people were happy, the govt was competent and the opposition viable, they tended to vote less.

    With major problems, angry, nasty polarised politics, universal fear and useless governments they turnout.

    Low turnout isn’t necessarily a problem - so long as you retain the power to turnout when it goes wrong.
    I think problems arise when the 'governing consensus' drifts apart from chunks of the electorate - like the unalloyed benefits of immigration or EU membership - and if they carry on they end up with a 'now will you listen?' brick through the window like Brexit or Trump - potentially more damaging 'solutions' to problems that had been ducked.

    So while 'greater participation' might lead to Sindy, Trump2 or a Corbyn government - none of which I'm remotely in favour of - they'll be less damaging in the long run than growing alienation - and may well 'self-correct' faster than a more violent rupture.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    AndyJS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.

    The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.
    Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.
    Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,
    Surely greater participation in a democracy must be a "good thing" - even if it leads to results we personally don't like?
    That was the conventional wisdom, but I fear that it is not born out by evidence When people were happy, the govt was competent and the opposition viable, they tended to vote less.

    With major problems, angry, nasty polarised politics, universal fear and useless governments they turnout.

    Low turnout isn’t necessarily a problem - so long as you retain the power to turnout when it goes wrong.
    I think problems arise when the 'governing consensus' drifts apart from chunks of the electorate - like the unalloyed benefits of immigration or EU membership - and if they carry on they end up with a 'now will you listen?' brick through the window like Brexit or Trump - potentially more damaging 'solutions' to problems that had been ducked.

    So while 'greater participation' might lead to Sindy, Trump2 or a Corbyn government - none of which I'm remotely in favour of - they'll be less damaging in the long run than growing alienation - and may well 'self-correct' faster than a more violent rupture.
    I paid almost no attention to politics between 1997 and 2015. I think I voted at every election which I was eligible to - and even managed to vote for a police commissioner. But I was very happy doing other things. I'd love to get back to that.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Nigelb said:

    The AG has the legal authority to share details of Grand Jury investigations with the President:
    https://www.emptywheel.net/2018/11/07/matt-whitaker-has-authority-to-share-proceedings-of-national-security-grand-jury-investigations-with-trump/

    Without any paper trail.

    Trump,just appointed an acting AG , who judging by his previous comments is a tool of the president, without the usual Senate oversight (which would have ben required had Sessions been formally sacked rather than bowing to pressure to resign.

    I'm beginning to wonder if Sessions was on the indictment list and so by resigning he's effectively shutting down the investigation before he gets charged.
  • notmenotme Posts: 3,293
    felix said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    AndyJS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.

    The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.
    Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.
    Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,
    Surely greater participation in a democracy must be a "good thing" - even if it leads to results we personally don't like?
    That was the conventional wisdom, but I fear that it is not born out by evidence When people were happy, the govty tended to vote less.

    With major problems, angry, nasty polarised politics, universal fear and useless governments they turnout.

    Low turnout isn’t necessarily a problem - so long as you retain the power to turnout when it goes wrong.
    Not sure I agree. Trump in the White house is clearly a problem for many - his approach has certainly encouraged polarisation and he now faces a very hostile press. To an extent I'm not happy when the press make themselves the story though - the question none seem willing to ask is how this man became President? There has been a huge failure of the political and media class to engage with the thoughts and worries of many people. Too easy to condemn them as out of touch and ignorant - just as we've seen with Brexit. The anger of the dispossessed of course is nothing new - but that of the 'entitled m/c establishment' has and continues to be just as ugly.
    The doubling down on those on the non winning side for both Brexit and Trump is fascinating, as the polarisation and language becomes more aggressive, and you end up picking a side. But then you end up on the same side as mad hat brexiteers and dumb headed liberals.

    The doubling down on trump and Brexit is now, it’s not enough to call people who support either to be racist, that’s lost its value. It’s now that they are white nationalist and white supremacists. The doubling down now means even here in the uk it is now acceptable, if not standard in left circles to routinely blame ‘white men’, ‘elderly white men’ and ‘elderly white rich men’ for it all. On social media now the term ‘gammon’ is used over and over to attach a set of political values older members of a specific race and gender, and then use that word to debase their views because they are white and male (probably older).

    This language is used by people who would call themselves anti racist, anti prejudice.

    But what impact does have on those people who aren’t that politically engaged?

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Jonathan said:

    AndyJS said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AndyJS said:

    Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.

    The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.
    Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.
    Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,
    Yes the lowest turnout in recent elections in the US was 49% in 1996 and in the UK 59% in 2001 but back then the economy was doing well and immigration was less of an issue
This discussion has been closed.