Off topic, but soon to be relevant in American politics: Tomorrow the Supreme Court takes up affirmative action, the idea that it is OK for colleges and universities to discriminate by race, if they discriminate against the right races. (Correct me if I am wrong, but I think in the UK that is often called "positive discrimination".)
George Will explains what it at stake, clearly: "The oral arguments the Supreme Court will hear Monday concern two cases that are momentous, even though the desirable outcomes would not prevent the losing parties from continuing reprehensible practices. The cases concern racial preferences in admissions to Harvard and the University of North Carolina. By holding that such preferences violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws and the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of racial discrimination by recipients of federal funding, the court can bolster the wholesome belief held by a large, diverse American majority: that the nation’s laws should be colorblind." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/28/college-racial-discrimination-affirmative-action-supreme-court/
He's right to say that, no matter how the court rules, the colleges and universities will continue to discriminate, in spite of the illegality and unpoplarity of the practice: "In 1996, Californians voted 54.6 percent that the state “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to,” any individual or group on the basis of race in public education. In 2020, a much bluer and more diverse California was asked to repeal the 1996 proposition. Instead, Californians endorsed it more emphatically (57.2 percent). A national Pew Research Center poll in April found 74 percent hostile to racial preferences, including Hispanics (68 percent), Asians (63), Blacks (59), Republicans (87) and Democrats (62). The sordid business of divvying us up by race has brought us together in opposition to it."
In the rest of the newspaper, the editors come out in favor of affirmative action, and hope the Court can find some way to keep it going, and Roland G. Fryer Jr., an economcs professor at Harvard, says he benefited from affirmative action, but hopes his children never do -- and makes an argument for a "data-driven" replacement, where students who have mixed records but potential, are given a chance to realize that potential.
(Full disclosure: Washington state, like California, has twice voted against affirmative action -- and I was in the majority both times. I beleive it is unconstitutional, illegal, and usually hurts most of those who are "favored" by it.)
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I completely agree that the smart bet is on the polls being wrong by 3-4%, but I'd caution that it could be the other way around.
What I would bet against is a "soggy middle" result: i.e. 50/50 or the Republicans ending up 1-2. That's about 50% of the betting range and I think the last likely outcome.
Soneone shared and excellent site that had the previous election results on it along with the current live results. I failed to bookmark it. Anyone remember.
If Republicans win the Senate this year, it will be more evidence -- not that any more is needed -- that they do better when he is not on the ballot, or even in office.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Bolsawood is only winning the Federal District 60/40 at the moment. He won it 70/30 in 2018. 72% counted so unless that's heavily skewed he'd down quite a bit.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Between gerrymandering, voter suppression, Roe driven voting, and the level of general craziness endemic in America, it isn't a market that tempts me.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
If you count an irrelevant metric, then yes.
Whatever it is, it's not gerrymandering - it's the system that has been in place for hundreds of years.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Popular vote winners in reverse chorological order Biden Clinton Obama Obama Bush Gore Clinton Clinton
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I completely agree that the smart bet is on the polls being wrong by 3-4%, but I'd caution that it could be the other way around.
What I would bet against is a "soggy middle" result: i.e. 50/50 or the Republicans ending up 1-2. That's about 50% of the betting range and I think the last likely outcome.
I'd agree with the 'soggy middle' result bit. The mood at the moment doesn't feel very consensual at the moment.
Re the polls being off the other way i.e. we could get a surprise Dem majority, entirely possible but the actions of both sides (GOP Super PACs putting money into AZ and NH that they had abandoned and Dem money going into NY / WA) suggests both sides are thinking the tide is moving the same way.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Popular vote winners in reverse chorological order Biden Clinton Obama Obama Bush Gore Clinton Clinton
7/8
Gore was a bit unlucky. Hillary Clinton was a bad enough candidate that she'd likely have contrived to lose no matter what the rules were.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Though having said that I suspect McCain would have beaten Gore in the popular vote in 2000 and Kasich would have beaten Hillary in the popular vote in 2016
So more rejecting moderate candidates costs the GOP the popular vote, if the EC did not exist they would have to pick more moderates, not just hardline Conservatives or rightwing populists.
Brazil: I am measuring the swing from the first round to the second. I think there is on average a very small swing to Lula. He was 5.2% ahead so I predict 53.5 to 46.5.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I completely agree that the smart bet is on the polls being wrong by 3-4%, but I'd caution that it could be the other way around.
What I would bet against is a "soggy middle" result: i.e. 50/50 or the Republicans ending up 1-2. That's about 50% of the betting range and I think the last likely outcome.
I'd agree with the 'soggy middle' result bit. The mood at the moment doesn't feel very consensual at the moment.
Re the polls being off the other way i.e. we could get a surprise Dem majority, entirely possible but the actions of both sides (GOP Super PACs putting money into AZ and NH that they had abandoned and Dem money going into NY / WA) suggests both sides are thinking the tide is moving the same way.
Oh, I completely agree that the Republicans are definitely the ones with the momentum.
But the odds being offered on Democrat outperformance are really attractive.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ "Woke" or radical progressivism erodes liberalism bc
1 elevates group over individual, we are no more than fixed race/sex/gender ID groups 2 elevates 'lived experience' over scientific method & curtails free speech 3 not just critical but cynical of ways of life that unite us Quote Tweet John Pavlovitz @johnpavlovitz · Oct 26 Using "woke" as a pejorative term is an iron-clad tell that you lack human empathy and find other's suffering of no concern.
Prove me wrong. 11:09 AM · Oct 30, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
Leon banned? An election night coup in Brazil? Liz Truss to be next PM?
What a lot of news. Now back to that Finland rumour. I’ve spent months dipping in and out of Google Translate to see if I can find it. And I can’t. I give up. Help. Please.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Popular vote winners in reverse chorological order Biden Clinton Obama Obama Bush Gore Clinton Clinton
7/8
More relevant to look at the House popular vote winners: D, D, R, R, D, R, D, D, R, R, R, R, D, R, D Over that period (I think)
Lula still in a better position than at this stage in the first round. He won that by 5.23%. The order of votes counted would have to be very different for him to lose now.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I completely agree that the smart bet is on the polls being wrong by 3-4%, but I'd caution that it could be the other way around.
What I would bet against is a "soggy middle" result: i.e. 50/50 or the Republicans ending up 1-2. That's about 50% of the betting range and I think the last likely outcome.
I'd agree with the 'soggy middle' result bit. The mood at the moment doesn't feel very consensual at the moment.
Re the polls being off the other way i.e. we could get a surprise Dem majority, entirely possible but the actions of both sides (GOP Super PACs putting money into AZ and NH that they had abandoned and Dem money going into NY / WA) suggests both sides are thinking the tide is moving the same way.
Oh, I completely agree that the Republicans are definitely the ones with the momentum.
But the odds being offered on Democrat outperformance are really attractive.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I completely agree that the smart bet is on the polls being wrong by 3-4%, but I'd caution that it could be the other way around.
What I would bet against is a "soggy middle" result: i.e. 50/50 or the Republicans ending up 1-2. That's about 50% of the betting range and I think the last likely outcome.
I'd agree with the 'soggy middle' result bit. The mood at the moment doesn't feel very consensual at the moment.
Re the polls being off the other way i.e. we could get a surprise Dem majority, entirely possible but the actions of both sides (GOP Super PACs putting money into AZ and NH that they had abandoned and Dem money going into NY / WA) suggests both sides are thinking the tide is moving the same way.
Oh, I completely agree that the Republicans are definitely the ones with the momentum.
But the odds being offered on Democrat outperformance are really attractive.
Take them.
Has something just happened in the US?
Ladbrokes have taken down their bets for the Senate / Gubernatorial races.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ "Woke" or radical progressivism erodes liberalism bc
1 elevates group over individual, we are no more than fixed race/sex/gender ID groups 2 elevates 'lived experience' over scientific method & curtails free speech 3 not just critical but cynical of ways of life that unite us Quote Tweet John Pavlovitz @johnpavlovitz · Oct 26 Using "woke" as a pejorative term is an iron-clad tell that you lack human empathy and find other's suffering of no concern.
Prove me wrong. 11:09 AM · Oct 30, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
Goodwin is an exceptionally shallow thinker, isn't he? What a load of garbage. I thought standards at British universities were meant to be high.
Example: he says woke 'elevates group over individual', then that it 'elevates 'lived experience over....'. I'd have thought 'lived experience' is pretty individual?
Lula still in a better position than at this stage in the first round. He won that by 5.23%. The order of votes counted would have to be very different for him to lose now.
Yeah, Bolsononono is doing slightly better in districts he lost compared to last time (but there is a vote count order affect) but much worse in districts he won.
At the moment it looks like an easy clap for Lula.
Not much move in tonight's Megafon poll in Denmark.
The centre-left parties have 47.8% , the centre-right 43.3% and the Moderates 8.8%.
The swing between the two blocs is negligible and both have lost 4 to 4.5 percent and you can see where it might have gone (though obviously there's a lot more churn going on than just that).
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ "Woke" or radical progressivism erodes liberalism bc
1 elevates group over individual, we are no more than fixed race/sex/gender ID groups 2 elevates 'lived experience' over scientific method & curtails free speech 3 not just critical but cynical of ways of life that unite us Quote Tweet John Pavlovitz @johnpavlovitz · Oct 26 Using "woke" as a pejorative term is an iron-clad tell that you lack human empathy and find other's suffering of no concern.
Prove me wrong. 11:09 AM · Oct 30, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
Goodwin is an exceptionally shallow thinker, isn't he? What a load of garbage. I thought standards at British universities were meant to be high.
He’s someone who defines himself against the prevailing norms. That can sometimes be valuable, but not when you just slip into the other lot of mirror image prevailing norms on the other side of the culture wars, which he does.
On a very not related topic, having just listened twice through the Now 90s Dancefloor compendium I am confident that the greatest dance anthem of all time is, despite strong competition from the likes of Urban Cookie Collective, “Set You Free” by N-Trance. Transcendent.
Said compilation album is a treasure trove. Dr Alban, Haddaway, Faithless, Underworld, 2 unlimited. They’re all there.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ "Woke" or radical progressivism erodes liberalism bc
1 elevates group over individual, we are no more than fixed race/sex/gender ID groups 2 elevates 'lived experience' over scientific method & curtails free speech 3 not just critical but cynical of ways of life that unite us Quote Tweet John Pavlovitz @johnpavlovitz · Oct 26 Using "woke" as a pejorative term is an iron-clad tell that you lack human empathy and find other's suffering of no concern.
Prove me wrong. 11:09 AM · Oct 30, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
Goodwin is an exceptionally shallow thinker, isn't he? What a load of garbage. I thought standards at British universities were meant to be high.
He’s someone who defines himself against the prevailing norms. That can sometimes be valuable, but not when you just slip into the other lot of mirror image prevailing norms on the other side of the culture wars, which he does.
On a very not related topic, having just listened twice through the Now 90s Dancefloor compendium I am confident that the greatest dance anthem of all time is, despite strong competition from the likes of Urban Cookie Collective, “Set You Free” by N-Trance. Transcendent.
Said compilation album is a treasure trove. Dr Alban, Haddaway, Faithless, Underworld, 2 unlimited. They’re all there.
Not so sure I agree with your first sentence. Surely Goodwin's anti-wokeism is in line with the prevailing norms, rather than against them?
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
Three comments: First, in the earlier years, gerrymandering tended to favor the Democrats since they had been the majority party in so many states, for so long.
Second, in 2012, Republicans did keep control of the House in spite of losing the popular vote, 47.7-48.8 percent. (This is not surprising since Democrats are more likely to be in districts that are heavily Democratic. In a few suchdistricts there will not even be a Republican running, which reduces their total popular vote.)
Third, I have been arguing since 2016 that Donald Trump was the beneficiary of "reverse coattails", that he won because of the popularity of other Republican candidates in a few key states. The Republican popular vote win in 2016 provides a little more evidence for my argument.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ "Woke" or radical progressivism erodes liberalism bc
1 elevates group over individual, we are no more than fixed race/sex/gender ID groups 2 elevates 'lived experience' over scientific method & curtails free speech 3 not just critical but cynical of ways of life that unite us Quote Tweet John Pavlovitz @johnpavlovitz · Oct 26 Using "woke" as a pejorative term is an iron-clad tell that you lack human empathy and find other's suffering of no concern.
Prove me wrong. 11:09 AM · Oct 30, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
Goodwin is an exceptionally shallow thinker, isn't he? What a load of garbage. I thought standards at British universities were meant to be high.
Example: he says woke 'elevates group over individual', then that it 'elevates 'lived experience over....'. I'd have thought 'lived experience' is pretty individual?
I think he means it tends to focus on lived experience of groups.
Of course this is Goodwin's definition of 'woke.' Since there is no agreed definition of the term people seem to spend a lot of time arguing in the dark.
Off topic, but soon to be relevant in American politics: Tomorrow the Supreme Court takes up affirmative action, the idea that it is OK for colleges and universities to discriminate by race, if they discriminate against the right races. (Correct me if I am wrong, but I think in the UK that is often called "positive discrimination".)
George Will explains what it at stake, clearly: "The oral arguments the Supreme Court will hear Monday concern two cases that are momentous, even though the desirable outcomes would not prevent the losing parties from continuing reprehensible practices. The cases concern racial preferences in admissions to Harvard and the University of North Carolina. By holding that such preferences violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws and the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of racial discrimination by recipients of federal funding, the court can bolster the wholesome belief held by a large, diverse American majority: that the nation’s laws should be colorblind." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/28/college-racial-discrimination-affirmative-action-supreme-court/
He's right to say that, no matter how the court rules, the colleges and universities will continue to discriminate, in spite of the illegality and unpoplarity of the practice: "In 1996, Californians voted 54.6 percent that the state “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to,” any individual or group on the basis of race in public education. In 2020, a much bluer and more diverse California was asked to repeal the 1996 proposition. Instead, Californians endorsed it more emphatically (57.2 percent). A national Pew Research Center poll in April found 74 percent hostile to racial preferences, including Hispanics (68 percent), Asians (63), Blacks (59), Republicans (87) and Democrats (62). The sordid business of divvying us up by race has brought us together in opposition to it."
In the rest of the newspaper, the editors come out in favor of affirmative action, and hope the Court can find some way to keep it going, and Roland G. Fryer Jr., an economcs professor at Harvard, says he benefited from affirmative action, but hopes his children never do -- and makes an argument for a "data-driven" replacement, where students who have mixed records but potential, are given a chance to realize that potential.
(Full disclosure: Washington state, like California, has twice voted against affirmative action -- and I was in the majority both times. I beleive it is unconstitutional, illegal, and usually hurts most of those who are "favored" by it.)
This issue was always going to arise. It's over 5 decades since the civil rights act and the US is now more of a multi-racial society than a bi-racial one.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ "Woke" or radical progressivism erodes liberalism bc
1 elevates group over individual, we are no more than fixed race/sex/gender ID groups 2 elevates 'lived experience' over scientific method & curtails free speech 3 not just critical but cynical of ways of life that unite us Quote Tweet John Pavlovitz @johnpavlovitz · Oct 26 Using "woke" as a pejorative term is an iron-clad tell that you lack human empathy and find other's suffering of no concern.
Prove me wrong. 11:09 AM · Oct 30, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
Goodwin is an exceptionally shallow thinker, isn't he? What a load of garbage. I thought standards at British universities were meant to be high.
He’s someone who defines himself against the prevailing norms. That can sometimes be valuable, but not when you just slip into the other lot of mirror image prevailing norms on the other side of the culture wars, which he does.
On a very not related topic, having just listened twice through the Now 90s Dancefloor compendium I am confident that the greatest dance anthem of all time is, despite strong competition from the likes of Urban Cookie Collective, “Set You Free” by N-Trance. Transcendent.
Said compilation album is a treasure trove. Dr Alban, Haddaway, Faithless, Underworld, 2 unlimited. They’re all there.
Not so sure I agree with your first sentence. Surely Goodwin's anti-wokeism is in line with the prevailing norms, rather than against them?
He defines himself against what he sees as the prevailing norms. To be fair in academia he will definitely be an outlier.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
Gerrymandering is specifically changing the boundaries of electoral districts to benefit the party doing the drawing.
Note: I should have added that Repubblicans kept control of the House in 1996 as well as 2012, in spite of losing the popular vote 48.15-48.22 percent. (The same argument I made for 2012 applies to 1996.)
"Matt Goodwin @GoodwinMJ "Woke" or radical progressivism erodes liberalism bc
1 elevates group over individual, we are no more than fixed race/sex/gender ID groups 2 elevates 'lived experience' over scientific method & curtails free speech 3 not just critical but cynical of ways of life that unite us Quote Tweet John Pavlovitz @johnpavlovitz · Oct 26 Using "woke" as a pejorative term is an iron-clad tell that you lack human empathy and find other's suffering of no concern.
Prove me wrong. 11:09 AM · Oct 30, 2022 ·Twitter Web App"
Goodwin is an exceptionally shallow thinker, isn't he? What a load of garbage. I thought standards at British universities were meant to be high.
Example: he says woke 'elevates group over individual', then that it 'elevates 'lived experience over....'. I'd have thought 'lived experience' is pretty individual?
I don't think his three principles are all meant to be completely consistent with each other, they are just three examples of things going on that conflict with the principles of liberalism.
Even if they are read together; under 'woke' thinking, a group could claim 'victim status' on the basis of their 'lived experience', despite actual 'evidence' to the contrary.
The failure of 'liberals' to engage in this debate and curb the excesses of the 'radical progressives' and their march through the institutions will lead to people voting for right wing parties. It certainly appears to be boosting the Republicans in the US.
Something seems wrong about using the approach to project but I can't quite put my finger on it.
EDIT: got it, it's going to favour the smaller Bolsonaro heavy areas for the moment which he is doing well in. I think this projection is going to swing heavily.
The warning signals are piling up here. My gut feel is the GOP will probably end up getting around 54 in the Senate (NV, AZ, GA eventually + 1 'shock' of NH/WA/CO), which is 8/1. If you don't want that, then the majority is 8/15 - a bit boring but probably safe-ish money given Johnson looks to be consolidating his lead in WI and Fetterman blew up last week in the PA debate so you would only need one win elsewhere.
I expect the Republicans will make gains, but struggle to see much betting value to tempt me.
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
I read that 8 out of the last 9 presidential elections (or perhaps 7 out of 8) were democratic majorities.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Please engage your brain (meant in the nicest possible way). You, of course, know the results below:
1976-80: Dem x1 1980-92: GOP x3 92-00: Dem x2 00-08: GOP x2 08-16: Dem x 2 16-20: GOP x1 20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
The electoral college IS a gerrymander - the smaller Republican states get far more electors per head of population.
No - a gerrymander is changing the boundaries of a voting district to favour one side or the other.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
Something seems wrong about using the approach to project but I can't quite put my finger on it.
EDIT: got it, it's going to favour the smaller Bolsonaro heavy areas for the moment which he is doing well in. I think this projection is going to swing heavily.
If it's swing based, surely that's less of a concern. For Bolsonaro to overtake Lula, he logically wins votes everywhere.
Comments
George Will explains what it at stake, clearly: "The oral arguments the Supreme Court will hear Monday concern two cases that are momentous, even though the desirable outcomes would not prevent the losing parties from continuing reprehensible practices. The cases concern racial preferences in admissions to Harvard and the University of North Carolina. By holding that such preferences violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws and the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of racial discrimination by recipients of federal funding, the court can bolster the wholesome belief held by a large, diverse American majority: that the nation’s laws should be colorblind."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/10/28/college-racial-discrimination-affirmative-action-supreme-court/
He's right to say that, no matter how the court rules, the colleges and universities will continue to discriminate, in spite of the illegality and unpoplarity of the practice: "In 1996, Californians voted 54.6 percent that the state “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to,” any individual or group on the basis of race in public education. In 2020, a much bluer and more diverse California was asked to repeal the 1996 proposition. Instead, Californians endorsed it more emphatically (57.2 percent). A national Pew Research Center poll in April found 74 percent hostile to racial preferences, including Hispanics (68 percent), Asians (63), Blacks (59), Republicans (87) and Democrats (62). The sordid business of divvying us up by race has brought us together in opposition to it."
In the rest of the newspaper, the editors come out in favor of affirmative action, and hope the Court can find some way to keep it going, and Roland G. Fryer Jr., an economcs professor at Harvard, says he benefited from affirmative action, but hopes his children never do -- and makes an argument for a "data-driven" replacement, where students who have mixed records but potential, are given a chance to realize that potential.
(Full disclosure: Washington state, like California, has twice voted against affirmative action -- and I was in the majority both times. I beleive it is unconstitutional, illegal, and usually hurts most of those who are "favored" by it.)
America is such a crazy place politically that I struggle to comprehend it now.
What I would bet against is a "soggy middle" result: i.e. 50/50 or the Republicans ending up 1-2. That's about 50% of the betting range and I think the last likely outcome.
5.61% (7.0 million) counted so far.
Bolsonaro on 53.2%.
Lula in to 1.21 at Betfair.
Lula will win this.
It’s only gerrymandering that keeps the Republicans in power.
Bolsawood is only winning the Federal District 60/40 at the moment. He won it 70/30 in 2018. 72% counted so unless that's heavily skewed he'd down quite a bit.
Whatever it is, it's not gerrymandering - it's the system that has been in place for hundreds of years.
Biden
Clinton
Obama
Obama
Bush
Gore
Clinton
Clinton
7/8
Re the polls being off the other way i.e. we could get a surprise Dem majority, entirely possible but the actions of both sides (GOP Super PACs putting money into AZ and NH that they had abandoned and Dem money going into NY / WA) suggests both sides are thinking the tide is moving the same way.
So more rejecting moderate candidates costs the GOP the popular vote, if the EC did not exist they would have to pick more moderates, not just hardline Conservatives or rightwing populists.
But the odds being offered on Democrat outperformance are really attractive.
Take them.
But, I had no real information
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1586676603823742981
"Matt Goodwin
@GoodwinMJ
"Woke" or radical progressivism erodes liberalism bc
1 elevates group over individual, we are no more than fixed race/sex/gender ID groups
2 elevates 'lived experience' over scientific method & curtails free speech
3 not just critical but cynical of ways of life that unite us
Quote Tweet
John Pavlovitz
@johnpavlovitz
·
Oct 26
Using "woke" as a pejorative term is an iron-clad tell that you lack human empathy and find other's suffering of no concern.
Prove me wrong.
11:09 AM · Oct 30, 2022
·Twitter Web App"
What a lot of news. Now back to that Finland rumour. I’ve spent months dipping in and out of Google Translate to see if I can find it. And I can’t. I give up. Help. Please.
D, D, R, R, D, R, D, D, R, R, R, R, D, R, D
Over that period (I think)
Dem 51%
GOP 49%
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/
Ladbrokes have taken down their bets for the Senate / Gubernatorial races.
Example: he says woke 'elevates group over individual', then that it 'elevates 'lived experience over....'. I'd have thought 'lived experience' is pretty individual?
16.0% counted, Lula's lead was -4.50%
2nd round
16.2% counted, Lula's lead is -3.4%
Not sure why
At the moment it looks like an easy clap for Lula.
Could be profitable.
The centre-left parties have 47.8% , the centre-right 43.3% and the Moderates 8.8%.
The swing between the two blocs is negligible and both have lost 4 to 4.5 percent and you can see where it might have gone (though obviously there's a lot more churn going on than just that).
20.0% counted, Lula's lead was -4.60%
2nd round
19.98% counted, Lula's lead is -3.1%
Rebuy at 1.36 for me.
On a very not related topic, having just listened twice through the Now 90s Dancefloor compendium I am confident that the greatest dance anthem of all time is, despite strong competition from the likes of Urban Cookie Collective, “Set You Free” by N-Trance. Transcendent.
Said compilation album is a treasure trove. Dr Alban, Haddaway, Faithless, Underworld, 2 unlimited. They’re all there.
1976-80: Dem x1
1980-92: GOP x3
92-00: Dem x2
00-08: GOP x2
08-16: Dem x 2
16-20: GOP x1
20-24: Dem x1
Unless you start claiming the electoral college doesn’t count and therefore the GOP are gerrymandering the claim doesn’t stand.
I haven’t checked the popular vote numbers but I suspect that Hillary beating Trump on popular vote is the claim they are making.
Assuming the electoral college and popular vote lines up in all other cases, the Dems win 6 out of the last 8 contests.
Edit: h/t @Alistair Id forgotten Gore won the popular vote
2016
2014
2010
2004
2002
2000
1998
1994
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections (and preceding years)
Three comments: First, in the earlier years, gerrymandering tended to favor the Democrats since they had been the majority party in so many states, for so long.
Second, in 2012, Republicans did keep control of the House in spite of losing the popular vote, 47.7-48.8 percent. (This is not surprising since Democrats are more likely to be in districts that are heavily Democratic. In a few suchdistricts there will not even be a Republican running, which reduces their total popular vote.)
Third, I have been arguing since 2016 that Donald Trump was the beneficiary of "reverse coattails", that he won because of the popularity of other Republican candidates in a few key states. The Republican popular vote win in 2016 provides a little more evidence for my argument.
Too big.
Obviously I could be wrong, but my money is where my mouth is.
Of course this is Goodwin's definition of 'woke.' Since there is no agreed definition of the term people seem to spend a lot of time arguing in the dark.
26.0% counted, Lula's lead was -4.20%
2nd round
26.04% counted, Lula's lead is -2.5%
He almost hit evens between the two rounds. I cursed maxing my exposure at 1.5.
https://resultados.tse.jus.br/oficial/app/index.html#/eleicao/resultados
Lula wins by 7%, 53.5% to 46.5%.
Okay, that's a joke, but that is my forecast at the moment.
But more importantly what about N-Trance?
Whatever the Electoral College is, it's not that.
https://twitter.com/patrickjfl/status/1586824630232391684
I don't think his three principles are all meant to be completely consistent with each other, they are just three examples of things going on that conflict with the principles of liberalism.
Even if they are read together; under 'woke' thinking, a group could claim 'victim status' on the basis of their 'lived experience', despite actual 'evidence' to the contrary.
The failure of 'liberals' to engage in this debate and curb the excesses of the 'radical progressives' and their march through the institutions will lead to people voting for right wing parties. It certainly appears to be boosting the Republicans in the US.
@patrickjfl
Brazil projection using municipality swings (24.48% counted)
🔴 Lula: 50.5% (-0.2)
🔵 Bolsonaro: 49.5% (+0.2)
Brazil projection using municipality swings in areas with 50%+ counted (36.3% of the vote in)
🔴 Lula: 50.4% (-)
🔵 Bolsonaro: 49.6% (-)
My projection is a 6.5% win, btw.
2018
Sao Paulo 68/32
Minas Gerais 58/42
Rio de Janeiro 68/32
2022
Sao Paulo 57/42 (23% counted)
Minas Gerais 50/50 (26% counted)
Rio de Janeiro 56/43 (22% counted)
41.2% counted, Lula's lead was -2.8%
2nd round
41.75% counted, Lula's lead is -1.2%
I’d imagine he might go for it even if thrashed but half heartedly, whereas if it’s close to 50:50 we’re talking full on 6 de Janeiro.
It's currently 49.42%.
It would take a re-ordering of results on a very grand scale.
EDIT: got it, it's going to favour the smaller Bolsonaro heavy areas for the moment which he is doing well in. I think this projection is going to swing heavily.
The electoral college members are selected based on a formula that (I think) is the number of members of the House of Representatives plus the number of Senators. Because the number of Senators is always two regardless of size this favours the smaller states. But it’s not a gerrymander.
Surely no-one on PB actually takes him seriously?
If not, let it ride.