Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[MJW (ya that one)]

I going to call NC-09 again. I did research. There were local races and the absentee fraud was for one of them. The reason for this is because to swing a congressional district you need a ton of votes and would get caught immediately (Harris won by around 900 but there's no way to know that). So you take off around 500 votes (amount needed to swing a local race) and Mark Harris is still up by 400. And having a special election because of just having irregularities is not sustainable because it's trivially easy to cause irregularities. The party out of power would cause special elections on purpose because it benefits them. So NC-09 can change like ME-02 could but it's extremely unlikely.

The CA-21 market was small so PredictIt will just pay Cox holders after admitting failure and not take back paid-out money. Nothing to see there too.

[MJW (ya that one)]

ECJ will give the big ruling on December 4th.

Corbyn said that May's deal is the worst of both worlds but I think that's BS. He just said that to attack May. So if ECJ rules in favor of revoke I think labour will go for a second referendum (I don't think May's deal would appear on the ballot because trashing it is the ticket to get the second referendum without causing "voting until you get it right" rage). If they will against labour will suck it up and prop up May; people will forget about everything that Corbyn did by the next election cycle--so I feel he's just pretending that ECJ will rule in favor of him and is trashing May's deal because of it.

[darrelljs]

When is the 2020 projection?

Darrell

[MJW (ya that one)]

538 has found enough votes to deny Harris the win. The DEMS will vote 4-0 and it will only take one GOP to flip to annul the election. I uncall NC-09.

It's not possible to subtract votes that have already been added so all that will happen is a new election. I would put that election at Tilt R because the GOP will be able to bail out Harris and annul the fundraising edge (DEMS spent 80% of the money in that district).

[MJW (ya that one)]

I've also found out that DeSantis got more votes than Scott because minorities ticket split in favor of him. https://www.wsj.com/articles/school-choi...1542757880 That explains why my calculation of adding the gap's between the governor and senate races didn't work. This analysis http://mcimaps.com/browards-poor-ballot-design/ calculates that 10,000 votes are missing for Nelson. Scott won by 10,033 votes, things continuing after recounts tend to favor DEMS and the missing votes would be even more favorable to Nelson because of the ticket-splitting to DeSantis.

So if you subtract the gifted ND and FL senate seats GOP goes -1 which on the worst map ever lines up with the governor and house races. Crystal Ball also should have been able to call every senate race correctly.

[ipecac]

The US left could easily have supported protectionism. In fact, it would make a lot of sense for them to protect their own voting base. Bernie Sanders, for instance, could easily have expanded on his stance against the TPP into protectionism.

Instead, on the national level the left have abandoned their old voters and given Trump a monopoly on telling workers that 'you were in bad shape with a worse outlook, but I'll help and protect you.'

Latest news is that Warren embraces protectionism, portraying herself as even more protectionist than Trump. Finally she's being sensible.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) isn’t ready to cede trade policy themes to President Donald Trump.
In a speech set to be delivered Thursday afternoon at American University, in Washington, DC, Warren unloads a biting critique of a generation’s worth of neoliberal trade policy consensus in Washington and — strikingly — insists that despite Trump’s embrace of protectionist rhetoric and aspects of protectionist policy, he hasn’t gone nearly far enough.

 

Warren wants to outflank Trump on trade
“The president grabs headlines railing against GM’s plans to axe thousands of American jobs in Ohio and Michigan,” Warren says in the speech, in a fairly obvious attack on Trump, “but his actual policies aren’t stopping them or others like them from continuing to put corporate profits ahead of American workers.”
More strikingly, though, Warren specifically argues that Trump’s signature renegotiation of NAFTA is a sellout of NAFTA critics.
“There’s no question we need to renegotiate NAFTA,” she says, before rehashing some of the standard anti-NAFTA talking points that trade skeptics have circulated for years. “But as it’s currently written, Trump’s deal won’t stop the serious and ongoing harm NAFTA causes for American workers — it won’t stop outsourcing, it won’t raise wages, and it won’t create jobs. It’s NAFTA 2.0.”
Warren says the tougher labor standards in the new deal are toothless, the environmental standards are lacking, and it’s “stuffed with handouts that will let big drug companies lock in the high prices they charge for many drugs.”
Consequently, she vows to oppose the deal in the Senate.

Warren seeks to reembrace the voters abandoned by the Dems, will she succeed?

The Warren Doctrine on trade: America first

Nationalism rises.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Macron approval rating at 19%.

[ipecac]

What's up, France? The usual riots, or something special?

[Krill]

The ball has started rolling on unilateral revocation being the legal right

Of course, his opinion is not binding, but ECJ often does agree with the Advocate General.

[Krill]

What's up, France? The usual riots, or something special?

Regardless of whether the riots are normal or not, the French governments response has been.