• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

Serious The Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, me too.

It goes both ways honestly, but most of them spend more time in Florida than they do in New England, at least in Mass. They'll come up around June and leave around September. As far as I'm concerned, that makes them Florida's exported problem, not ours.
I also live in Mass and my experience has been nobody cares about us because they'd rather go to New Yoahk City or Florida instead, which is sad because we have cool history here
 
Maybe I'll make a nicer more cohesive post here about this later with links or whatever. But anyways I'm tired of Lula's stupid centrist little plays and his worthlessness. I didn't expect him to be a leftist and was waiting for a boring rather unproductive term and lots of holding the line but the complete inaction on the burnings in the amazon and pantanal is crazy. also his inaction on anything related to indigenous people but hes always been dogshit about that too. PCB save me. save me PCB. PCB please
After Lula 1 and Lula 2, I was already expecting a centrist Lula 3 specially with so much right wingers in the parliament but it's disappointing nonetheless.
 
This is what i deserve for believing we'd get the bare minimum of not being ass. I love being brazilian this is so cool and epic and not at all maddening :mad:
It seems that Lula does this to gain acceptance from right winger sectors from Brazilian society like the agribusiness and the military but they don't care and he will always be a dirty communist to them.
 
We definitely have history. I'm sure there's some cool shit mixed in all the indigenous genocide.
It may seem morbid, but a part of the reason I read about history is to see: The humanity that persists under inhumanity, and the unexpected humanity from those who are expected to be inhumane. For me history is not just about seeing achievements, it's getting the philosophy, politics, culture and more of our ancestors (not just direct, but in all time periods and across the world), other cultures, and understanding how things came to be how they are.

Massachusetts has always been a weird as fuck state politically. It's been a pot that's released many horrifying ideologies, and yet it's also the state that outlawed slavery in every form first. It's a state that could only exist due to bloodshed of people who we invaded and pillaged, but it's also a state that nowadays is one of the most socially progressive.

I think it's understandable to take issue with me saying "cool history", I should've thought harder on that- interesting would have been a better word, but in general I think that the history we have here is something that everyone in America should know, and visitors should know, because it really gets at the heart of how America started beyond the myths, beyond the bullshit- We murdered our way into existence, no matter how it's ended up. I think if my first US History teacher in High School didn't grill into my head the history of the people we oppressed here and in early America (far before when the mainstream class structure teaches things, like feminism, ie. we were taught about the history of feminism in the 16th century when the mainstream curriculum only really does it in the suffrage movement), that we read far more accounts of slaves. We read about a slave owner who raped his slave, had a child, and sold the child, and how common that was, and other morbid things. Riots in Boston about Irish folk "taking the damn jobs!" and massacres, lynchings, Andrew Jackson. The Trail of Tears not just as a sad thing that happened, but one of the nails in the coffin after hundreds of years of bloodshed, and hatred for a people, viewing them as vermin. Religious extremists as a mean of fascism, as a means of control (there's good historical fiction books by Nathaniel Hawthorne about the period, usually with a feminist lens; The Scarlet Letter in particular). A history that was more focused on our actual history than the type of thing I got the next year, with a different US history teacher, where we went through the American presidents and what they did and maybe a few reforms here and there. And it helped me become more self-aware about humanity as a whole. It gave me a reference point to when I see modern injustices when I was young, and from there I became curious and read about other cultures, more history, other injustices, the rarer justices, the history of today.

I wish every American could get that teacher I had in US History 1, and how much it opened my eyes to American history. America wasn't just "We moved here, we went to war with Britain over taxes, we went to war over slavery, we did some colonialism in the 20th century and participated in WW1, we were a major part of WW2, we did nuke, Civil Rights happened we did the Cold War and then we are here today," as I'd been taught before, and would be taught in a similar way again.

And that isn't the bare minimum expectation in our society, unfortunately- we still use the people we genocided as puppets culturally, and we still demean them as caricature trophies, and we still present them often as subhuman in media; the more people that look into the history, I hope the more aware people can become. I think at the minimum, if more people learned of the history, the actual history and the actual people we attempted to wipe out, people would be more conscious.


Thanksgiving being a national holiday is pretty fucking gross, though.

I'm coming for the Canadians on this one, too, btw. From my understanding yall took Thanksgiving from us as a tradition, then tried to reinvent it into a thing for the British Royal Family? But also Canada is absolutely guilty of similar sins with native peoples.

Also, for anyone that actually visits for some reason, for the love of god do not visit Plymouth Rock it's basically not real, it's a made up tourist "attraction" (it's a rock why do people actually come visit it), also some of our historical locations are kinda not good at explaining the history. I remember in middle school we went to one of the towns from The Pilgrims (trademark) and the tour was basically "Wow these sure are old homes that are shitty," and the only history we learned was like. The stuff that sucked about living in that era. Boohoo for the invaders that were inconvenienced after the natives who tried to teach them local crops got fucking murdered (by them!)

I wrote this out and maybe it's too long, but this is actually the third rewrite because I wasn't entirely sure how to get all my points across. There's a lot of nuance to the politics of history, and as a history nerd I want it to be extremely clear how I think it is very important for people to understand this history. I didn't mean in the first place that what things happened in Massachusetts were "cool", really, at least in the positive sense.
 
Predictions are starting to roll in. Allan Lichtman is expected to release his official prediction via the New York Times after Labor Day.

Election forecaster Chris Bouzy, who has been more accurate than the Nates (Cohn and Silver) just released his map:

View attachment 662834

Looks like a Dem best case scenario. He’s been contact with state party in Florida and is bullish that it will flip in November. We shall see. Thoughts?

1724639868947.png
 
-snipped, good post though-

As a history nerd I'm sure you know where Massachusetts got its name. It will never not disgust me on a fundamental level what we did to the people we named ourselves after. It's a monument to American hubris like no other.

I grew up less than a two-mile walk from King Philip's cave, which is really just a couple of boulders leaning on each other in the woods, but it does mean that I was fortunate enough to learn about King Philip's War at a relatively young age from local folklore. Even the English-biased, watered-down, whitewashed version of events I got was appalling. The fact that such a definitive war in English-Indigenous relationships gets at best a passing mention in most history books is borderline criminal.

If you haven't already, Flintlock and Tomahawk: New England in King Philip's War by Douglas Edward Teach is a worthwhile read. It isn't without its own biases and it does its fair share of both-sidesing, but even despite that it manages to paint a shocking picture of a war I'd wager the majority of Americans haven't even heard of, even though we can still see the consequences to this day.

EDIT: As for Plymouth rock/plantation, I agree they're not worth the trip, but if you really do want to visit, the best time to go is, ironically, thanksgiving. Not for any of the reasons one might think, but because every year on the National Day of Mourning on Cole's Hill, right across the street from the alleged Plymouth rock (the Mayflower settlers didn't record which rock they stepped on first lmao, do people really believe that shit), a group of indigenous activists, leaders, and advocates gather to discuss the forgotten history of their people as well as their concerns in the modern world. If you're going to be in the area anyways, stop and listen for a while. We owe that to them at the very least.

Or you could visit Provincetown. It's not as interesting from a historical perspective but if you want to experience the good side of New England culture, that's where you go.
 
Last edited:
Predictions are starting to roll in. Allan Lichtman is expected to release his official prediction via the New York Times after Labor Day.

Election forecaster Chris Bouzy, who has been more accurate than the Nates (Cohn and Silver) just released his map:

View attachment 662834

Looks like a Dem best case scenario. He’s been contact with state party in Florida and is bullish that it will flip in November. We shall see. Thoughts?
Florida, Ohio, and Iowa being remotely competitive at the Pres level is pure fantasy. There's no polling data (or any other kind of data) to support that, and if Harris does win those states she will most certainly have won Texas and probably Alaska as well. North Carolina going to Harris is probably overly optimistic, though it is at least borderline competitive. AZ / GA / PA / WI will be where the election is won or lost, and while Trump is probably favored in GA there's no reason to think Harris can't win all of those states.

On the senate side, Florida is the only obvious absurdity. The rest of the predictions are plausible, although Tester is probably favored to lose in Montana and I personally don't like Brown's chances much in Ohio purely due to partisan polarization and the fact he will need to outrun Harris by 8 - 10 points to win.
 
Florida, Ohio, and Iowa being remotely competitive at the Pres level is pure fantasy. There's no polling data (or any other kind of data) to support that, and if Harris does win those states she will most certainly have won Texas and probably Alaska as well.

Obama won all three of these states twice so to call them “pure fantasy” is patently absurd. Obviously Republicans are favored in recent times. I personally am skeptical of Bouzy’s predictions on these but he uses metrics such as special election results (go look at how Republicans have been performing in Ohio as of late), correspondence with the state party, and voter registration trends to make these predictions. Please do not cite “polling” as evidence, as it is anything but that. Polls have exactly zero predictive value even a week out from an election, let alone 75 days.

North Carolina going to Harris is probably overly optimistic, though it is at least borderline competitive. AZ / GA / PA / WI will be where the election is won or lost, and while Trump is probably favored in GA there's no reason to think Harris can't win all of those states.

North Carolina going blue is not “optimistic.” Joe Biden only lost NC by 1 point in 2020 a D+4.5 victory. Barack Obama won NC in 2008 in a D+7 victory. NC was as blue as Pennsylvania in the 2022 midterms
EDIT: NC was bluer than PA in 2022. Cheri Beasley a 3 point loss in a R+3 year? Yikes… Republicans might want to check their shit.

On what planet is Trump favored in Georgia? Republicans have lost every statewide Federal election in Georgia in the post-2016 Trump era. How does that make him favored?

On the senate side, Florida is the only obvious absurdity. The rest of the predictions are plausible, although Tester is probably favored to lose in Montana and I personally don't like Brown's chances much in Ohio purely due to partisan polarization and the fact he will need to outrun Harris by 8 - 10 points to win.

Florida has always been a purple to slightly red state in the modern landscape so how is it absurd that unpopular Senator Rick Scott could be in a competitive race? You do remember he won in 2018 by a mere 10,000 votes.. ?
 
Last edited:
confidently projecting blue Florida is serious cope imo.

Even in a scenario where Harris wins every agreed-upon 2024 swing state (i.e. no Florida in that list) I doubt Florida is even the closest state under the Trump column. TX would more likely end up closer in that scenario than FL. To be clear, I don't think Harris wins either but I think TX is more likely to be the closer state.

Screenshot 2024-08-26 at 10.49.33 AM.png
Screenshot 2024-08-26 at 10.50.24 AM.png


TX in 2020: R+5.6, and quickly going down since 2012
FL in 2020: R+3.3, and quickly going up since 2008

Now if you think these are random walks and could regress to the mean then yeah FL is more likely to be closer than TX. FL does still have a purpler PVI than TX, for now.

But TX is moving directionally in lockstep with the US but even faster leftward (i.e. there was not a big pro-Trump surge in TX that was seen in a lot of red states, though this is primarily just down to demographics imo, not exclusively a huge backlash to Trump imo), while FL used to move similarly to the nation, but did not remotely in 2020. In an election where basically every other state in the country moved towards Biden and away from Trump, FL did the opposite. If you think we're in an environment where Harris wins every other swing state, it's probably a D+5 national environment. In a D+5, TX could easily finish within 1 or 2 points. Florida historically would go blue (see 2012 for example), but not under the 2020 environment. I don't really see why FL would buck its trend.
 
confidently projecting blue Florida is serious cope imo.

Even in a scenario where Harris wins every agreed-upon 2024 swing state (i.e. no Florida in that list) I doubt Florida is even the closest state under the Trump column. TX would more likely end up closer in that scenario than FL. To be clear, I don't think Harris wins either but I think TX is more likely to be the closer state.

View attachment 663217View attachment 663218

TX in 2020: R+5.6, and quickly going down since 2012
FL in 2020: R+3.3, and quickly going up since 2008

Now if you think these are random walks and could regress to the mean then yeah FL is more likely to be closer than TX. FL does still have a purpler PVI than TX, for now.

But TX is moving directionally in lockstep with the US but even faster leftward (i.e. there was not a big pro-Trump surge in TX that was seen in a lot of red states, though this is primarily just down to demographics imo, not exclusively a huge backlash to Trump imo), while FL used to move similarly to the nation, but did not remotely in 2020. In an election where basically every other state in the country moved towards Biden and away from Trump, FL did the opposite. If you think we're in an environment where Harris wins every other swing state, it's probably a D+5 national environment. In a D+5, TX could easily finish within 1 or 2 points. Florida historically would go blue (see 2012 for example), but not under the 2020 environment. I don't really see why FL would buck its trend.

2020 is only one data point where Florida moved to the right relative to all other states. We cannot use one data point as a trend. That can just as easily revert to the mean.

My personal observation over time is that the Latino vote tends to favor incumbents, which is why Florida moved left relative in 2012, and right relative in 2020. I’ve noticed this phenomenon in my state New Jersey across multiple election cycles. That same trend existed in 2012, as Obama did considerably worse with white voters than 2008 and better with Latinos, which ultimately flipped the electoral college bias that year (Obama would have won 2012 even if he lost the popular vote, due to his rediculous margins among Latinos in states like Nevada and Colorado).
 
Obama won all three of these states twice so to call them “pure fantasy” is patently absurd. Obviously Republicans are favored in recent times. I personally am skeptical of Bouzy’s predictions on these but he uses metrics such as special election results (go look at how Republicans have been performing in Ohio as of late), correspondence with the state party, and voter registration trends to make these predictions. Please do not cite “polling” as evidence, as it is anything but that. Polls have exactly zero predictive value even a week out from an election, let alone 75 days.



North Carolina going blue is not “optimistic.” Joe Biden only lost NC by 1 point in 2020 a D+4.5 victory. Barack Obama won NC in 2008 in a D+7 victory. NC was as blue as Pennsylvania in the 2022 midterms
EDIT: NC was bluer than PA in 2022. Cheri Beasley a 3 point loss in a R+3 year? Yikes… Republicans might want to check their shit.

On what planet is Trump favored in Georgia? Republicans have lost every statewide Federal election in Georgia in the post-2016 Trump era. How does that make him favored?



Florida has always been a purple to slightly red state in the modern landscape so how is it absurd that unpopular Senator Rick Scott could be in a competitive race? You do remember he won in 2018 by a mere 10,000 votes.. ?
First, polls do have strong predictive value, that's why the campaigns employ whole teams of pollsters in order to get up-to-date snapshots on the state of the race in various states and to play around with different messaging options. This far out there is a lot that can change, yes, but I am referring to the state of the race as of this moment, which should be a given. Generally things change only a few points in one direction or the other (at most) from Labor Day to election day, but yes polls a week out are more predictive than polls conducted now.

Second, I won't get into the weeds of every single state you mentioned above, but lets take Florida as an example of why the predictions you cited are not reasonable. The trend in Florida since 2008 has been as follows:
- 2008: D+2.8%
- 2012: D+.9%
- 2016: R+1.2%
- 2020: R+3.4%

Then, consider the following:
- Republicans recently passed the 1,000,000 mark in voter registration differential in Florida (source: link). This difference has grown consistently since 2020, when Democrats held a roughly 100,000 registration edge. This shift happened largely due to COVID and accelerated the existing political trends in Florida that I mentioned above.
- In 2022, Republicans won the Senate and Governor races by more than 15 percentage points. These were not competitive races.

So no, Florida being competitive (much less a state one thinks Harris will win) is not a realistic prediction. Thus, 'pure fantasy'. Ohio and Iowa have similar narratives, and in fact will likely be even larger Trump wins in November than Florida.

As I mentioned previously, Texas is significantly more likely to be competitive than any of the above. It has consistently trended towards Democrats for the last twenty years, and has an increasing minority population that makes it a much better long-term prospect.

North Carolina is a stubbornly R-leaning state that is unlikely to flip blue in a close election nationally (i.e. within 5 points in either direction), and there is no reason to think that Harris is going to win in a landslide based on the available data. As I mentioned, however, it is definitely competitive and therefore, while optimistic, projecting it for the Democrats isn't absurd.

Finally, Trump is slightly favored in Georgia because he is slightly ahead in the polling there. Again, the state will be close and Harris could most definitely win there, but if I had to bet my life savings as of right now on who will win I'm going with the candidate who the data says is more likely to win.

I would mention that citing 'correspondence with the state parties' as a source for predictions ought to be automatically disqualifying to anyone making a serious attempt to forecast election results. State parties are notoriously bullish by necessity, because Americans are more likely to vote for someone they think will win (source: link). The parties are not trying to be 'correct', they are doing everything they can to gain an edge (as well they should be).

If you are interested in election forecasting I can privately send you links / resources on the subject, just let me know. I personally find the subject fascinating.
 
First, polls do have strong predictive value, that's why the campaigns employ whole teams of pollsters in order to get up-to-date snapshots on the state of the race in various states and to play around with different messaging options. This far out there is a lot that can change, yes, but I am referring to the state of the race as of this moment, which should be a given. Generally things change only a few points in one direction or the other (at most) from Labor Day to election day, but yes polls a week out are more predictive than polls conducted now.

I have been the most vocal in this thread out of anyone in saying that following polls and basing campaign decisions on polling is a mistake. But you know, Hillary Clinton should have won in a landslide.

Second, I won't get into the weeds of every single state you mentioned above, but lets take Florida as an example of why the predictions you cited are not reasonable. The trend in Florida since 2008 has been as follows:
- 2008: D+2.8%
- 2012: D+.9%
- 2016: R+1.2%
- 2020: R+3.4%

Then, consider the following:
- Republicans recently passed the 1,000,000 mark in voter registration differential in Florida (source: link). This difference has grown consistently since 2020, when Democrats held a roughly 100,000 registration edge. This shift happened largely due to COVID and accelerated the existing political trends in Florida that I mentioned above.
- In 2022, Republicans won the Senate and Governor races by more than 15 percentage points. These were not competitive races.

So no, Florida being competitive (much less a state one thinks Harris will win) is not a realistic prediction. Thus, 'pure fantasy'. Ohio and Iowa have similar narratives, and in fact will likely be even larger Trump wins in November than Florida.

I agree and will predict that Florida, Ohio, and Iowa will go red but I do believe Florida will be competitive (within 2%) and Ohio will come closer than it has in recent years. I do not find his prediction absurd because there is data to support it. Bouzy has been clear re: Florida that 3-5% of Republicans in Florida are not voting for Trump and the NPA (no party affiliation) votes will be the deciding factor. Abortion is on the ballot in November.

Ohio has shifted left since 2020 (Tim Ryan losing by 6 in an R+3 year?), and while I don’t think it is winnable for Harris, I do expect Brown to prevail.

Finally, Trump is slightly favored in Georgia because he is slightly ahead in the polling there. Again, the state will be close and Harris could most definitely win there, but if I had to bet my life savings as of right now on who will win I'm going with the candidate who the data says is more likely to win.

Lol. “Polls.” All MAGA has done in Georgia is lose. Lose, lose, lose, lose. I dunno what else can be said.
 
Comparing FL latinos to any other state's Latinos is a really, really risky notion and this would be borne out by any number of data points I don't have time to pull right now. But this is fundamentally logical, since they're of different heritage and have different values. Latinos are not remotely monolithic.

Among the major heritages:
NJ Latinos are overwhelmingly Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Mexican. ~92%. Only 8% Cuban.
FL Latinos are 33% Cuban and 18% Colombian/Venezuelan (i.e. a majority in total). Only 49% are Puerto Rican, Dominican, and Mexican.

As a secondary point, Republicans have been vastly more successful at Latino outreach in Florida than Democrats. They're getting that clear trendline from 2008 until today for a reason.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article286321405.html

"The underlying reasons for the shift are still a topic of intense debate among political observers and party leaders, but two frequent themes emerge: Trump and Republicans have invested in years of effective political and cultural messaging, whereas Biden and Democrats haven’t put in the necessary level of manpower and resources, resulting in a loss of support and enthusiasm.
In South Florida, Republicans have launched clinics to help immigrants study for their naturalization tests. They have also used foreign policy as a tool of campaigning, speaking up against leaders in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela that many Latinos who move to Florida blame for worsening conditions in their homelands."
 
Abortion is on the ballot in November.
Didn't you say like 1-3 pages ago that it is a known phenomenon that Americans vote for leftward policy in ballot initiatives yet still vote for Republicans

In fact
Democrats shouldn’t get too cocky about all the abortion initiatives on November ballots. A lot of pro-abortion rights measures will pass in states that will still vote Republican in the Pres and Senate.

Edit: I need to stop editing my posts but more that I am of the mind Florida is something of a lost state for dems until they out fundraise Republicans while you are just correct about Republicans getting owned in Georgia in 2020 pres and senate
 
Didn't you say like 1-3 pages ago that it is a known phenomenon that Americans vote for leftward policy in ballot initiatives yet still vote for Republicans

Yes, in this context it is a turnout boon for Dems / NPA, rather than conversion of Republicans.

Comparing FL latinos to any other state's Latinos is a really, really risky notion and this would be borne out by any number of data points I don't have time to pull right now. But this is fundamentally logical, since they're of different heritage and have different values. Latinos are not remotely monolithic.

I agree with most of this. My point was less about party affiliation and more that there is a trend of Latino voters towards incumbency. You may be on to something about the outreach but I have my own theory. Let’s just say culturally up here in NJ and NY our Latino brothers and sisters are highly apt to identify with their Afro and indigenous roots and that NJ Cubans don’t vote like FL Cubans.
 
There are many, many things about MTG that are terrible and that should be called out. Attacking her (perfectly normal) body features is completely unnecessary and counterproductive to the kind of social change that the Democratic Party stands for.

Nahhhhh. It is absolutely not counterproductive when she is the aggressor. That they go low we go high stuff is so 2016. When they go low, KO them! Ridicule is highly effective against MAGA.

Convicted felon Trump is predictably trying to dodge the September 10 debate as we speak.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top