2022 elections. The steady march for sanity continues.

tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
xtsho said:
The GOP could have easily won this race....If it wasn't for the...
Click to expand...
'If your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle' as my cousin used to say. "Ifs" don't count, just ask Hillary.

The lingering malignant political tumor known as Trump is now kind of an asset, and Republicans almost everywhere will continue to suffer until they finally unite and file for divorce and cut that vile tumor off.

In the meantime, I'm going to enjoy the daily shit show that comes out of his mouth, the future indictments, the dinners with neo-nazi types, the upcoming war with DeSantis and others, and the SCOTUS decisions that make the majority of America cringe.
As long as he retains his 30% MAGA base of racist types (and he will forever) I just need to be stocked up on popcorn. Republicans lack the guts to publically dump him and deserve the uphill struggles and election losses until they do.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
WHEN!?!?!?
Click to expand...
Georgia is done and today is the "day of infamy", so I figure soon, maybe a week or two tops, after that it will be in the new year after the new congress sits. I'd like to see Donald under indictment before then and I think Jack might too, but who knows what details he might like to finish up. He's going for J6 too, so taking the kingpin down early and fast over the docs has many advantages moving forward. It will make them look for deals and sing long and hard on anybody they could find to lighten their sentences. They also will have no idea about what Donald is telling the feds since he will try to blame them from his prison cell and squeal his head off to whoever is in the room he can whine to.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
You got to give the man credit, he's got to be the only guy in history to win 4 senate races in 2 years.
Click to expand...
Warnock should have thanked Trump in his speech and given him credit for providing a moron of such low character as an opponent! Warnock could not have won without Trump, both times. I figure he will do a good job and with demographic change, has a decent shot 6 years down the road of keeping his seat.
 
tangerinegreen555

tangerinegreen555

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
I figure he will do a good job and with demographic change, has a decent shot 6 years down the road of keeping his seat.
Click to expand...
With a little luck, he may only have to win once next time.

And that whole runoff thing in Georgia started over racism if I'm not mistaken. They don't seem to be in a hurry to change it, they'd rather threaten to arrest people who offer a bottle of water to someone waiting in a voting line.

www.pbs.org

Georgia’s runoff elections have segregationist roots

Since the 1960s, Georgia’s majority voting law has required a candidate get 50 percent of the vote or more in order to be declared the winner.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
tangerinegreen555 said:
With a little luck, he may only have to win once next time.

And that whole runoff thing in Georgia started over racism if I'm not mistaken. They don't seem to be in a hurry to change it, they'd rather threaten to arrest people who offer a bottle of water to someone waiting in a voting line.

www.pbs.org

Georgia’s runoff elections have segregationist roots

Since the 1960s, Georgia’s majority voting law has required a candidate get 50 percent of the vote or more in order to be declared the winner.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org
Click to expand...
6 years is a long time in modern politics and change can come to American society from the other direction as quick as it came from Trump's side. It was always there, but Trump just brought it to the forefront, likewise good leaders can lead a society up, though the climb up is often a slog, while the trip down can be in freefall.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:

Let's talk about what Warnock's win means....
Click to expand...
He's usually worth listening but I have to disagree on his conclusion. Beau concluded that the unlikely voter did not turn up yesterday. His reason for saying so was because the polls matched the outcome of Warnock winning by a 2-plus margin, unlike what happened in November, when polling predicted widespread Republican wins in contested states while the real outcome was a rash of Democrats beating MAGA Republicans in those same states. In Georgia the general election Walker was predicted to win by a small margin, when in fact, Warnock actually won by a small margin. To Beau, this meant that unlikely voters -- people who were not included in November polls an therefore not included in the predictions -- unlikely voters showed up in November and produced a result that pollsters could not have predicted. To Beau, that polls were accurate in the runoff, meant the wildcard unlikely voter did not show up.

His conclusion might be true, I'm not saying I have a crystal ball. I'm bothered that Beau chose one -- to me unlikely -- reason while other simpler reasons exist. Alternate possibilities or combinations of the following are as or more likely to be true. :

  • The "unlikely voter" were now likely voters. They had made up their mind about who they wanted to vote for and said so when asked. And they voted that way last Tuesday.
  • The margin of error in these polls can't accurately predict outcomes when the margin of winning is 3% or less.
  • Poll results are forecasted as probability of winning or losing. The forecast from the site 538 for the general election gave Warnock a 38% chance of winning and Walker a 63% chance of winning. This is not a deterministic prediction and so, Beau is misquoting what pollsters were saying. Pollsters were saying Walker had a better chance of winning than Warnock, not that Walker would win. They could not say Walker would win because polling results were not clear enough to justify saying that.
So, Beau is not necessarily wrong, but his certainty about unlikely voters not showing up based upon polling being accurate is. The media are in over their heads when it comes to how to use statistics. Same with Beau.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
6 years is a long time in modern politics and change can come to American society from the other direction as quick as it came from Trump's side. It was always there, but Trump just brought it to the forefront, likewise good leaders can lead a society up, though the climb up is often a slog, while the trip down can be in freefall.
Click to expand...
The US is headed away from right wing authoritarian white nationalist populism in a long term trend. MAGA fascism has had its day and will never gain the same grip on power that it had in 2016.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
He's usually worth listening but I have to disagree on his conclusion. Beau concluded that the unlikely voter did not turn up yesterday. His reason for saying so was because the polls matched the outcome of Warnock winning by a 2-plus margin, unlike what happened in November, when polling predicted widespread Republican wins in contested states while the real outcome was a rash of Democrats beating MAGA Republicans in those same states. In Georgia the general election Walker was predicted to win by a small margin, when in fact, Warnock actually won by a small margin. To Beau, this meant that unlikely voters -- people who were not included in November polls an therefore not included in the predictions -- unlikely voters showed up in November and produced a result that pollsters could not have predicted. To Beau, that polls were accurate in the runoff, meant the wildcard unlikely voter did not show up.

His conclusion might be true, I'm not saying I have a crystal ball. I'm bothered that Beau chose one -- to me unlikely -- reason while other simpler reasons exist. Alternate possibilities or combinations of the following are as or more likely to be true. :

  • The "unlikely voter" were now likely voters. They had made up their mind about who they wanted to vote for and said so when asked. And they voted that way last Tuesday.
  • The margin of error in these polls can't accurately predict outcomes when the margin of winning is 3% or less.
  • Poll results are forecasted as probability of winning or losing. The forecast from the site 538 for the general election gave Warnock a 38% chance of winning and Walker a 63% chance of winning. This is not a deterministic prediction and so, Beau is misquoting what pollsters were saying. Pollsters were saying Walker had a better chance of winning than Warnock, not that Walker would win. They could not say Walker would win because polling results were not clear enough to justify saying that.
So, Beau is not necessarily wrong, but his certainty about unlikely voters not showing up based upon polling being accurate is. The media are in over their heads when it comes to how to use statistics. Same with Beau.
Click to expand...
He often brings a fresh angle or perspective to the conversation and stimulates thinking about issues. His image also appeals to those who are on the other side, and he has a lot of them watching him (judging from some of the letters he reads out and questions he is asked). Changing hearts and minds is what it is all about too, not just demographic change, but trying to talk sense to the brainwashed.
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
Warnock should have thanked Trump in his speech and given him credit for providing a moron of such low character as an opponent! Warnock could not have won without Trump, both times. I figure he will do a good job and with demographic change, has a decent shot 6 years down the road of keeping his seat.
Click to expand...
i wouldn't say Warnock could not have won. people would have approached the whole election differently, there would have been at least a couple of debates, things could have gobe very differently, either way, because walker appealed to a large segment of the voters, for what ever fucked up reason, the republicans could have picked someone with a better pedigree, but who wouldn't have connected with the crazy segment like walker did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top