politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The restoration of Florida felons voting rights could tip the
Comments
-
Aren’t they more likely (making a wild assumption) to be concentrated in cities - so already democrat voting districts?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.0 -
Yeah, but often these people are already very rich. Take the sacking for a change.malcolmg said:
MONEY and lots of it if they fall on their sword , zilch if they don't.kle4 said:
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.Alistair said:Sessions was absolutely craven to resign.
Should have made Trump fire him.0 -
You’d probably enjoy Into the Badlands.TheScreamingEagles said:
Just focus on Felicity.Alistair said:
If Homicide:Life on the Street is available then you should definitely watch that.TheScreamingEagles said:
Watched True Detective.Alistair said:
The first season of True Detective is very fine television.TheScreamingEagles said:
If anyone could recommend any stuff to binge watch I'd be grateful.FrancisUrquhart said:
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.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've not watched season 5 yet, should I binge watch them?FrancisUrquhart 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 got another five and a half months of gardening leave to use up.
You could go on a manhole cover tour instead....
I've got access to Sky, Netflix, and Amazon Prime.
Arrow is utter crap (I say after watching 7 episodes) .
The Arrowverse is awesome.
Seriously though Arrow is a garbage fire of bad writing and bad acting in season 1 so far.
Undemanding fun.
0 -
-
What difference does that make in a presidential race? None!Charles said:
Aren’t they more likely (making a wild assumption) to be concentrated in cities - so already democrat voting districts?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.0 -
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
Insomnia + in my home office I have one of my monitors often with shows going while I code.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.
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.
0 -
“Woman, much missed.Nigelb said:
Because we are too menny....SeanT said:
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.kle4 said:
It's one of those shows I remember being great, truly great, yet have not felt the urge to rewatch since it concluded.Alistair said:I presume everyone has watched The Wire?
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.
I loathe Hardy. Some fine poetry, though.
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......
0 -
That is good news. But let’s keep up the pressure on Pakistan to treat the rest of its Christian minority with civilized decency.Foxy said:Some good news, but sad for Pakistan making asylum nessecary.
https://twitter.com/abidhussayn/status/1060278669678182405?s=190 -
Fat Chance of that ever happeningCyclefree said:
That is good news. But let’s keep up the pressure on Pakistan to treat the rest of its Christian minority with civilized decency.Foxy said:Some good news, but sad for Pakistan making asylum nessecary.
https://twitter.com/abidhussayn/status/1060278669678182405?s=190 -
q
There is your explanation - you garden.Cyclefree said:
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.FrancisUrquhart said:
Insomnia + in my home office I have one of my monitors often with shows going while I code.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.
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.
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.
0 -
...Thus I; faltering forward,Cyclefree said:
“Woman, much missed.Nigelb said:
Because we are too menny....SeanT said:
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.kle4 said:
It's one of those shows I remember being great, truly great, yet have not felt the urge to rewatch since it concluded.Alistair said:I presume everyone has watched The Wire?
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.
I loathe Hardy. Some fine poetry, though.
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......
Leaves around me falling,
Wind oozing thin through the thorn from norward,
And the woman calling.
0 -
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.html0 -
Lucky we were discussing Senatorial races then I supposeAnazina said:
What difference does that make in a presidential race? None!Charles said:
Aren’t they more likely (making a wild assumption) to be concentrated in cities - so already democrat voting districts?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.0 -
Charles said:
Aren’t they more likely (making a wild assumption) to be concentrated in cities - so already democrat voting districts?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.0 -
Thanks for the book recommendations.Foxy said:
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.SeanT said:
If you want to learn about Africa can I recommend a book (yes, an actual book): Dictatorland.Foxy said:
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.Benpointer said:
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.SeanT said:
FFS how disappointing is the Haunting of Hill House? I heard this was a Netflix masterpiece,FrancisUrquhart said:
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.TheScreamingEagles said:
I've not watched season 5 yet, should I binge watch them?FrancisUrquhart 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 got another five and a half months of gardening leave to use up.
You could go on a manhole cover tour instead....
I need to download! And my iPad is empty.
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)
Doing Money on BBC was a one off on Monday, but also very compelling viewing.
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.
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/00997490090 -
That shouldn't matter to the Senate elections.rcs1000 said:Charles said:
Aren’t they more likely (making a wild assumption) to be concentrated in cities - so already democrat voting districts?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.0 -
They have video cameras in a Press Conference - who knew?
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/10603387006457774080 -
Racist post by Laura Bassett....CarlottaVance said:
https://twitter.com/cspan/status/10602335339004477450 -
Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.0
-
Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.rcs1000 said:
The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.AndyJS said:Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.
0 -
Sounds like a very positive change.0
-
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.0 -
Fixed it for you...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 toolof the president, without the usual Senate oversight (which would have ben required had Sessions been formally sacked rather than bowing to pressure to resign.0 -
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 100.0
-
Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,AndyJS said:
Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.rcs1000 said:
The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.AndyJS said:Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.
0 -
Surely greater participation in a democracy must be a "good thing" - even if it leads to results we personally don't like?Jonathan said:
Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,AndyJS said:
Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.rcs1000 said:
The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.AndyJS said:Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.
0 -
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.ydoethur said:
And Rangana Herath will want three more wickets.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.
0 -
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.CarlottaVance said:
Surely greater participation in a democracy must be a "good thing" - even if it leads to results we personally don't like?Jonathan said:
Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,AndyJS said:
Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.rcs1000 said:
The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.AndyJS said:Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.
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.
0 -
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.Jonathan said:
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.CarlottaVance said:
Surely greater participation in a democracy must be a "good thing" - even if it leads to results we personally don't like?Jonathan said:
Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,AndyJS said:
Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.rcs1000 said:
The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.AndyJS said:Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.
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.
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.0 -
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.Jonathan said:
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.CarlottaVance said:
Surely greater participation in a democracy must be a "good thing" - even if it leads to results we personally don't like?Jonathan said:
Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,AndyJS said:
Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.rcs1000 said:
The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.AndyJS said:Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.
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.0 -
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.Jonathan said:
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.CarlottaVance said:
Surely greater participation in a democracy must be a "good thing" - even if it leads to results we personally don't like?Jonathan said:
Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,AndyJS said:
Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.rcs1000 said:
The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.AndyJS said:Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.
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.
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.0 -
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.CarlottaVance said:
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.Jonathan said:
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.CarlottaVance said:
Surely greater participation in a democracy must be a "good thing" - even if it leads to results we personally don't like?Jonathan said:
Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,AndyJS said:
Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.rcs1000 said:
The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.AndyJS said:Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.
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.
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.0 -
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.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.0 -
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.felix said:
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.Jonathan said:
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.CarlottaVance said:
Surely greater participation in a democracy must be a "good thing" - even if it leads to results we personally don't like?Jonathan said:
Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,AndyJS said:
Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.rcs1000 said:
The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.AndyJS said:Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.
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.
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?
0 -
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 issueJonathan said:
Is it good? High turnout = Polarisation and High dissatisfaction,AndyJS said:
Interesting. It's good that turnout is on an upward trajectory in most western countries after declining in the 2000s.rcs1000 said:
The Democrats got 25% more votes at the midterm House elections than their previous (midterm) peak of 2006.AndyJS said:Apparently turnout at the mid-terms was 49%. And that counts as a huge turnout.
0
