Cont: The Biden Presidency (3)

[Stacyhs]

I stopped putting much confidence in polls in 2016.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Deja Vu.

Bedrock liberal jurisprudence is on the chopping block because the geriatric RBG refused to play the game and retire strategically.

Now Biden can't appoint federal judges because 128 year old Feinstein refused to pass the torch and is now to frail and bewildered to reliably show up to vote.

It's wonderful that all our civil rights depends on hubristic geriatrics betting they can continue to outperform the actuarial tables.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, right now, more people want four more years of that than want four more years of Biden.

Based on what evidence? 2020 already proved that claim wrong.

Deja Vu.

Bedrock liberal jurisprudence is on the chopping block because the geriatric RBG refused to play the game and retire strategically.

Now Biden can't appoint federal judges because 128 year old Feinstein refused to pass the torch and is now to frail and bewildered to reliably show up to vote.

It's wonderful that all our civil rights depends on hubristic geriatrics betting they can continue to outperform the actuarial tables.

Didn't pay attention to the facts then? Let me repeat the problem. From above:

It's even more ugly when the minority uses some kind of tactic against the majority. It feels very ugly when McConnell pulls one sleazy tactic after another. That bastard would love for Senator Feinstein to resign because he can refuse to let another Democrat be approved for the Judiciary Committee. That leaves him with a way to block any nominee from getting out of committee to a floor vote. That means judicial appointees need 60 votes and not 50 + Harris. IOW no more Biden nominees to the federal bench.

The GOP are the kings of the ugliest sleaze.

Let me repeat a frequent skit on The Daily Show: Prove me wrong.

 

[angrysoba]

Now it's "the Biden family".

Good grief, talk about obvious framing to make it sound like a mafia family. And this projection is notable given how the corruption really does involve the Trump family.

House Republicans ramp up claims Biden family received money from foreign contacts

I'm pretty sure a son and a brother (not sure if that's Joe or Jill Biden's sibling) do not constitute "the Biden family".

The "Biden Family" frame has two goals. One is as you said, making it sound like a mafia family. The other is to link Joe Biden to the sketchy dealings in the first place. There is all sorts of sketchy stuff they can hang on Hunter, but they have nothing on Joe or they would have used it by now.

Not that it will matter to Republicans, but simultaneously calling Biden "Sleepy Joe" suggesting he's senile or asleep at the switch, while also the head of a vast corrupt crime family involved in all kinds of devious plans doesn't make any coherent sense. But concerns about logic has never been the strong point of MAGAChuds.

 

[Segnosaur]

Well, right now, more people want four more years of that than want four more years of Biden.

Based on what evidence? 2020 already proved that claim wrong.

Well, most RECENT polls show Biden in the lead in a head-to-head matchup against Trump, but there are a few that show Trump ahead.

For example, an ABC poll taken between April 28-May 3 showed Trump ahead by 6 points.

Now, that doesn't mean Trump will necessarily win. (There's a big difference between some theoretical election 2 years from now with no consequences, and actually making a choice on election day.) But, it should be a reason for concern.

See: Five thirty eight

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, most RECENT polls show Biden in the lead in a head-to-head matchup against Trump, but there are a few that show Trump ahead.

For example, an ABC poll taken between April 28-May 3 showed Trump ahead by 6 points.

Now, that doesn't mean Trump will necessarily win. (There's a big difference between some theoretical election 2 years from now with no consequences, and actually making a choice on election day.) But, it should be a reason for concern.

See: Five thirty eight

It's a ******* year and a half out from the election. ... These polls are not on the top of things I give a rat's ass about this month. Pretty sure said pollsters and the media are selling the product they sell. I have no interest in buying today.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Based on what evidence? 2020 already proved that claim wrong.


Didn't pay attention to the facts then? Let me repeat the problem. From above:


Let me repeat a frequent skit on The Daily Show: Prove me wrong.

She could have retired fifteen years ago when she had enough of her mind left to realise she was losing it.

 

[Segnosaur]

Well, most RECENT polls show Biden in the lead in a head-to-head matchup against Trump, but there are a few that show Trump ahead.

For example, an ABC poll taken between April 28-May 3 showed Trump ahead by 6 points.

It's a ******* year and a half out from the election. ... These polls are not on the top of things I give a rat's ass about this month. Pretty sure said pollsters and the media are selling the product they sell. I have no interest in buying today.

Hey, someone asked for evidence that voters were willing to abandon Biden for Trump. A poll showing greater support for Trump is evidence. (And since we won't be having an election for a while yet, its about the only thing we have to go on.)

I already admitted that a poll this far out doesn't mean "Biden will lose", only that its a cause for concern.

 

[Segnosaur]

I stopped putting much confidence in polls in 2016.

It should be noted that the polls in 2016 were actually fairly accurate, at least on a national level.

From: CBC News
The CBC's Presidential Poll Tracker gave Clinton a 3.4-point lead in national polls over Trump on election day....Actually, the polls weren't far off the final result at all. Clinton did win the popular vote, besting Trump by 2.1 points. So the total error in national polls was quite small - in line with, and even little better than, past performances....

So polling on a national level does give a sense of what the "average" voter wants.

The problem wasn't necessarily the polls themselves, but the interpretation of the data. Analysts didn't really "drill down" into state-level data very well. It should also be noted that at least some analysts thought Clinton was "likely" to win, but thought Trump had a roughly 10-20% chance of winning. And Trump winning under those conditions is not that big of a shock. (Its like guessing a number between 1 and 5 accurately... its going to happen SOMETIMES.)

 

[Stacyhs]

Based on what evidence? 2020 already proved that claim wrong.


Didn't pay attention to the facts then? Let me repeat the problem. From above:


Let me repeat a frequent skit on The Daily Show: Prove me wrong.

As I understand it, Feinstein requested a temporary replacement on the Judiciary Committee while she recovers, which is what McConnell said he would not allow. However, if she resigns and Newsom appoints a new Dem senator, I don't think McConnell can stop that new replacement from being on the Committee.

From The New Republic:

If Feinstein does resign, California Governor Gavin Newsom would appoint her replacement, and President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees would no longer be stuck in limbo with a split Judiciary Committee.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

She could have retired fifteen years ago when she had enough of her mind left to realise she was losing it.

That doesn't prove me wrong.

Regardless of when she should have retired how were the Democrats supposed to have accomplished that? But more importantly, how was anyone supposed to have predicted McConnell would threaten to block her replacement on a committee?

Hindsight does not prove me wrong. You are welcome to try again.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Hey, someone asked for evidence that voters were willing to abandon Biden for Trump. A poll showing greater support for Trump is evidence. (And since we won't be having an election for a while yet, its about the only thing we have to go on.)

I already admitted that a poll this far out doesn't mean "Biden will lose", only that its a cause for concern.

Here's my problem, what poll, how was it designed, who answered the questions, how were they selected, do we know there actually was a poll?

Why the **** should anyone be concerned about this?

Biden won against Trump by 6 million votes in 2020. Are you suggesting 6 million plus voters are going to suddenly have a change of heart and vote for Trump because Biden is 4 years older?


Look at reality, Trump's base has been shrinking since he was elected.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As I understand it, Feinstein requested a temporary replacement on the Judiciary Committee while she recovers, which is what McConnell said he would not allow. However, if she resigns and Newsom appoints a new Dem senator, I don't think McConnell can stop that new replacement from being on the Committee.

From The New Republic:

I believe I have seen you post this before. I could be wrong but I don't see McConnell being any nicer with a new Senator as with a temporary one.

I admit I could be wrong but I know I did read that the problem doesn't go away if Feinstein resigns.

I could be misreading things like this:
McConnell says Republicans will block effort to replace Feinstein on Judiciary panel

Schumer has said he wanted to vote this week to have another Democrat take Feinstein's place on the Judiciary committee. But any move to change committee assignments would need 60 votes to pass and Democrats are operating with a slim 51-49 majority.

McConnell can block the committee appointment, the vote would be 50:50. It then goes to the floor where 60 votes are required to approve the nominee.

Biden would need all his Democrats and the Independents to change the rule (and I believe that has to occur at the beginning of a session which is months away). That means Manchin could ask for any number of things to get his vote as could Sinema.

Besides the judicial nominee issue, the tradeoff could be Biden looks as weak as McCarthy.


I'll have to dig deeper ... later, the Sun is still out here.

 

[Stacyhs]

I believe I have seen you post this before. I could be wrong but I don't see McConnell being any nicer with a new Senator as with a temporary one.

You may have seen this before but it wasn't posted by me.

I admit I could be wrong but I know I did read that the problem doesn't go away if Feinstein resigns.

Could be because it's never been established what happens in a case like this:

Even a Feinstein resignation from the Senate itself would not necessarily resolve the committee assignment issue, since the measure to seat a successor appointed by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom would also be debatable.

I can see it going to court.

I could be misreading things like this:
McConnell says Republicans will block effort to replace Feinstein on Judiciary panel



McConnell can block the committee appointment, the vote would be 50:50. It then goes to the floor where 60 votes are required to approve the nominee.

Biden would need all his Democrats and the Independents to change the rule (and I believe that has to occur at the beginning of a session which is months away). That means Manchin could ask for any number of things to get his vote as could Sinema.

Besides the judicial nominee issue, the tradeoff could be Biden looks as weak as McCarthy.

That quote was regarding only a temporary replacement, not if Feinstein resigns and Newsom appoints a permanent replacement.

 

[gnome]

It should be noted that the polls in 2016 were actually fairly accurate, at least on a national level.

From: CBC News
The CBC's Presidential Poll Tracker gave Clinton a 3.4-point lead in national polls over Trump on election day....Actually, the polls weren't far off the final result at all. Clinton did win the popular vote, besting Trump by 2.1 points. So the total error in national polls was quite small - in line with, and even little better than, past performances....

So polling on a national level does give a sense of what the "average" voter wants.

The problem wasn't necessarily the polls themselves, but the interpretation of the data. Analysts didn't really "drill down" into state-level data very well. It should also be noted that at least some analysts thought Clinton was "likely" to win, but thought Trump had a roughly 10-20% chance of winning. And Trump winning under those conditions is not that big of a shock. (Its like guessing a number between 1 and 5 accurately... its going to happen SOMETIMES.)

Their mistake was thinking that the polling error for each state was independent. Instead of considering if the same source of error that might throw off a poll in one state could throw it off for the others too. So they mistakenly figured Trump had to beat the odds multiple times which is how you got those ridiculous 90% chance of win ideas.

Nate Silver had Trump with a 25% chance of winning. Doesn't sound like a lot, but it's winning two coin tosses. Figure that's exactly what happened effectively.

 

[Stacyhs]

Their mistake was thinking that the polling error for each state was independent. Instead of considering if the same source of error that might throw off a poll in one state could throw it off for the others too. So they mistakenly figured Trump had to beat the odds multiple times which is how you got those ridiculous 90% chance of win ideas.

Nate Silver had Trump with a 25% chance of winning. Doesn't sound like a lot, but it's winning two coin tosses. Figure that's exactly what happened effectively.

Trump won; the US lost. Bigly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You may have seen this before but it wasn't posted by me.

Then somehow I read the thread before without remembering I had.

My brain cells are definitely on the downward curve so if I come across the other post I'll let you know.

That quote was regarding only a temporary replacement, not if Feinstein resigns and Newsom appoints a permanent replacement.

It could be interpreted different ways.


Has anyone posted the procedure for replacing a committee member when the legislator dies or resigns mid-legislative-session?

That would resolve this issue. Again, I have enough on my plate trying to keep the COVID origin debate out of the CT weeds.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Their mistake was thinking that the polling error for each state was independent. Instead of considering if the same source of error that might throw off a poll in one state could throw it off for the others too. So they mistakenly figured Trump had to beat the odds multiple times which is how you got those ridiculous 90% chance of win ideas.

Nate Silver had Trump with a 25% chance of winning. Doesn't sound like a lot, but it's winning two coin tosses. Figure that's exactly what happened effectively.

Is that some kind of average of said polls that included polls a year and a half out? Are you aware that you've now moved the goalpost off the field unless you are talking about something other than what @Segnosaur posted?

This debate is stupid. You want to defend some poll this early when we don't even know who was polled or how?

The debate is not about election polls in general. It is about what I consider an annoying unsupportable claim @Segnosaur made that Trump is ahead of Biden in the race and we should all be worried or whatever it is we are supposed to be doing.

 

[gnome]

Is that some kind of average of said polls that included polls a year and a half out? Are you aware that you've now moved the goalpost off the field unless you are talking about something other than what @Segnosaur posted?

This debate is stupid. You want to defend some poll this early when we don't even know who was polled or how?

The debate is not about election polls in general. It is about what I consider an annoying unsupportable claim @Segnosaur made that Trump is ahead of Biden in the race and we should all be worried or whatever it is we are supposed to be doing.

I didn't mean to annoy you with my comment. I was speaking more to what happened in 2016.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't mean to annoy you with my comment. I was speaking more to what happened in 2016.

Sorry. I was still annoyed from yet one more BS claim that Biden is a terrible candidate for ...reasons.

Get over it people (not you gnome) unless he changes his mind about running, or, I suppose unless one wants to see the GOP return Trump to his glorious power.

This is what happened to Clinton, the badmouthing from the Bernie Bros, from Bernie and from all the misled left leaners who bought into all the lies about the woman. Don't get me started given it will derail the thread.

You don't want Trump back in the White House, stop badmouthing Biden. Unless he drops out of the race, consider him the candidate we have.

Personally I think he's done an excellent job so far. I only have a couple of complaints, and one of them isn't that he's senile.

By all means stop amplifying that lie.