Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

... huh. It looks like SCOTUS struck down part (though just part) of the three-strikes bullshit that's been fucking with our legal system for a while now. Maybe more details later (it's about a quarter past 1 AM, here, and am sleepy), or maybe not (since I'm pretty much entirely unqualified to interpret legal information), but it seems like something that folks might be interested in hearing about. Court summation is here, as a .pdf, for anyone interested in it. There's news thingies floating around, too, but a(n incredibly) cursory look-around seems to be showing some of them are what could be charitably called wildly inaccurate, so...

[scriver]

1. Wheelchair-bound Ron Kirk (R-IL) trying to hold off double-amputee Iraq War veteran Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) in what can only be called one of the most uncomfortable races in America.

A small correction:
Mark Kirk is the Senator. Ron Kirk was U.S. Trade Rep.

Boldly trading where no man has traded before!

[Bauglir]

... huh. It looks like SCOTUS struck down part (though just part) of the three-strikes bullshit that's been fucking with our legal system for a while now. Maybe more details later (it's about a quarter past 1 AM, here, and am sleepy), or maybe not (since I'm pretty much entirely unqualified to interpret legal information), but it seems like something that folks might be interested in hearing about. Court summation is here, as a .pdf, for anyone interested in it. There's news thingies floating around, too, but a(n incredibly) cursory look-around seems to be showing some of them are what could be charitably called wildly inaccurate, so...

I'm going to have to read this later, it'll be a refreshing experience to read something Scalia wrote and not retch with anger every paragraph or so.

Holdings suggest that the rule here is that laws can't be dependent on idealized or "normal" crimes; therefore three strikes is a problem because it assumes all instances of a given violent crime are the same and therefore leaves no room for the actual facts of a given case. I'll need to dig a bit deeper to get at how accurate that impression is, however, and I'm off to sleep in a moment here.

EDIT: This might say something important about mandatory sentencing minimums, too, if what I just said is accurate. That'd be a nice piece of shit to heft out of our legal system if we could.

[RedKing]

New poll in my home state, which further leads me to believe that people in this state have lost their ever-loving minds.

First, the Republican primary numbers:

Trump -- 16%
Walker* -- 12%
Bush -- 12%
Huckabee -- 11%
Rubio -- 9%
Carson -- 9%
Paul -- 7%
Cruz -- 6%
Christie -- 5%
Fiorina -- 4%
Perry -- 2%
Santorum -- 1%
Graham -- 1%
Jindal -- 1%

Yep, that's right. According to this poll if the NC primary was held today, Donald Trump would win.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

But...how do the candidates stack up against Hillary Clinton?

Trump 44, Clinton 47
Walker 47, Clinton 43
Bush 43, Clinton 45
Huckabee 49, Clinton 45
Rubio 47, Clinton 46
Carson 47, Clinton 44
Paul 46, Clinton 45
Cruz 46, Clinton 47
Christie 43, Clinton 46
Fiorina 45, Clinton 45

No data available for Perry, Santorum, Graham and Jindal.

So, Trump would win the state in the primary, but lose in the general election. That sort of makes sense, as there are Republicans for whom Hillary would be less distasteful than Trump. I dont think this speaks to Hillary's crossover appeal so much as the intensity of dislike of Trump by some in the GOP. Ditto for Bush, Cruz and Christie, who all have their haters among Republicans. If you can't beat Clinton in NC, when Ben Carson and Rand Paul can beat her, you've got a problem.

Next, what the hell is with this state's love for Mike Huckabee? I know we have some Bible-thumpers, but daaaaaamn.

Couple of other items of note:
1. Trump has a net +23 favorability rating. How is that even a thing?
2. Mike Huckabee has a +46 favorability rating? How is *that* even a thing??
3. 100% of the respondents with a favorable opinion of Trump also had a favorable opinion of George Pataki. WTF IS GOING ON HERE?

[smjjames]

New poll in my home state, which further leads me to believe that people in this state have lost their ever-loving minds.

First, the Republican primary numbers:

Trump -- 16%
Walker* -- 12%
Bush -- 12%
Huckabee -- 11%
Rubio -- 9%
Carson -- 9%
Paul -- 7%
Cruz -- 6%
Christie -- 5%
Fiorina -- 4%
Perry -- 2%
Santorum -- 1%
Graham -- 1%
Jindal -- 1%

Yep, that's right. According to this poll if the NC primary was held today, Donald Trump would win.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

But...how do the candidates stack up against Hillary Clinton?

Trump 44, Clinton 47
Walker 47, Clinton 43
Bush 43, Clinton 45
Huckabee 49, Clinton 45
Rubio 47, Clinton 46
Carson 47, Clinton 44
Paul 46, Clinton 45
Cruz 46, Clinton 47
Christie 43, Clinton 46
Fiorina 45, Clinton 45

No data available for Perry, Santorum, Graham and Jindal.

So, Trump would win the state in the primary, but lose in the general election. That sort of makes sense, as there are Republicans for whom Hillary would be less distasteful than Trump. I dont think this speaks to Hillary's crossover appeal so much as the intensity of dislike of Trump by some in the GOP. Ditto for Bush, Cruz and Christie, who all have their haters among Republicans. If you can't beat Clinton in NC, when Ben Carson and Rand Paul can beat her, you've got a problem.

Next, what the hell is with this state's love for Mike Huckabee? I know we have some Bible-thumpers, but daaaaaamn.

Couple of other items of note:
1. Trump has a net +23 favorability rating. How is that even a thing?
2. Mike Huckabee has a +46 favorability rating? How is *that* even a thing??
3. 100% of the respondents with a favorable opinion of Trump also had a favorable opinion of George Pataki. WTF IS GOING ON HERE?

There should be a number 4.

4. Why the heck hasn't Scott Walker truly officially started his campaign? He's abusing that system so hard that it's a 4D pretzel.

Really though, I'm surprised that Trump has a positive favorability rating in the first place while at the same time, I'm not surprised that he is drawing such a crowd either.

I wonder what the ratio in California is, *looks at site*

Edit: Not there, tried google, but everybody seems to be concentrating on the swing states......

[nenjin]

I don't really get why Huckabee is so popular either, other than I think he's one of the more personable candidates. But the dude cheated on his sick wife....and then unapologetically dove back into politics and actually used trying to repair his marriage as a talking point for his qualifications. The mind boggles.

It drives me insane that the religion and values guy gets away with this shit. He's a walking, talking example of the hypocrisy of the values platform.

Trump....I dunno. Maybe conservatives are so on the defensive that his "dirty raping Mexicans" comment is resonating especially hard. All I know is, he's getting more articles written about him now than any other candidate. Maybe that poll is less an actual favorability poll and more of a name recognition poll.

[smjjames]

@nenjin, that seems likely, considering how many of the republican candidates don't have widespread name recognition..

Anyways, The most recent poll for California is from back in May, so, we probably won't see one until things really get underway in like September or October, maybe November.

It could also be a case of 'too many choices and no idea who the heck to choose'. The debates will start helping with that.

[RedKing]

Walker has announced that he would announce (yeah, don't think about it too hard) next Tuesday.

The whole "not a candidate but TOTALLY running for office" schtick has really gotten old.

[birdy51]

I'm not all that surprised to see Trump doing well. Americans don't feel secure about a lot of things right now, Conservatives in particular. At least in my own, good old Republican saturated region, people are tired with the perceived 'weakness' of Obama. It's only natural then for these concerned individuals would flock to someone with charisma who isn't afraid to get his hands dirty with touchy subjects.

I hesitate to say it, because I know that it's an unpopular opinion, but I can't help but agree with them in this case.

[nenjin]

It's always confusing to me to read conservatives calling Obama weak while at the same time calling him a tyrant who is trampling the constitution and states rights. Those two seems at odds. Or more appropriately, they'll make any disparaging remark about him until they find one that sticks.

It's only natural then for these concerned individuals would flock to someone with charisma who isn't afraid to get his hands dirty with touchy subjects.

I'd be careful not to conflate boldness and straight-talking with saying something outrageous so people will give you the attention you need. Trump has always said stuff with an eye for what it will do for him and his brand. Trump doesn't say what he says because he's an activist. He's an opportunist.

[birdy51]

It's because the two issues are seen as separate. Obama's certainly made an impact stateside, but at the same time there is a shit-ton of new worries going on overseas. By nature, Republicans prefer states to be autonomous, so large decisions made at a national level that effect local issues don't sit well with people in red states. However, us red-blooded Americans like to see America be tough on the International stage. Which... Is bothersome when you see situations like continued Russian aggression against the Ukraine and the rise I.S.I.S.

Anyways. If Trump is being an opportunist, more power to him. At any rate, it's still pretty damn assertive, even if he does happen to be blowing smoke out his ass. Ass smoke is a political tool used by all politicians, not just him.

[Reelya]

WTF IS GOING ON HERE?

Yeah, I also notice that Clinton beats Trump, Trump beats Walker, but Walker beats Clinton. It's completely symmetrical!

Obviously when people are being asked their favorite R candidate they're using a different logical process than when asked to rank each one against the opposition candidate.

[misko27]

The thing about Trump is that he will not win (he is just too damn unlikable, and unelectable; the same people who nominated Mitt Romney and John McCain will never support Trump), but until he doesn't win, he has *far* too much power and influence over the nominating contest. Faaar too much. Think about this: Because Trump is doing so well, the odds are that he will be within the top ten nationally when the first debate rolls around (and amazingly, probably close to the center of the stage, next to Bush, Rubio, and Walker), which also means he will push out one of the more serious but low-polling candidates (on Red King's NC poll, that would be Perry, Santorum, Graham and Jindal). Just think about that: Rick Perry was more then a bit of a buffoon in 2012, but he was still a governor of a major state (and a major republican state) for a long time, Santorum was the main contender to Romney in 2012, Graham is a major foreign policy expert and Senator (and is practically the long-lost brother of 2008's candidate, John McCain), and Jindal is a popular southern governor and one of the few minorities in the race; Governor Kasich of Ohio (remember Ohio? The state no republican can lose if they want to win the General Election?) wasn't even on that poll, but he would get booted too. All of those people would be booted off in favor of Donald Trump. And there's no criteria they've found yet that will exclude Trump but include important people like Jeb.

Basically, it's a brewing shitstorm of epic proportions. If Trump doesn't deflate soon, it's, well, it's going to be very amusing from a certain POV.

[nenjin]

Which... Is bothersome when you see situations like continued Russian aggression against the Ukraine and the rise I.S.I.S.

Tough as in....ready to start WWIII? Because that's about the only move we have left in the region we haven't already taken. Sanctions, financial support for Ukraine, international condemnation, parading armored convoys across Europe, moving strategic assets.....all that is left is to put American boots on the ground and be like "come at me bro." Is that really the outcome you'd prefer?

I mean, if you want to give Obama shit for something he could have done more about without plunging an entire foreign region into chaos, give him shit for his handling of Syria. Russian balked at taking action because they were supplying Syria with arms. Obama deferred direct action in an effort to not antagonize Russia over other diplomatic issues, failing to realize that Putin will take every inch given. That's still a far cry away from "being tough" in Ukraine, which has basically boiled down to "either you deploy actual military assets to fight the Russians/separatists for Ukraine, or you let Ukraine sort things out as a primary actor in the conflict." While it's crap that Russia is flaunting the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine, the alternative is a lot uglier.

he has *far* too much power and influence over the nominating contest.

This can only work out for democrats and the moderates. Either Trump drives the escalation of rhetoric to new heights, and forces Republican candidates to say extreme stuff during the primaries to keep up in the eyes of the base, which only hurts the victor in the general election....or by being such a loud mouthed idiot on the issues, he forces Republicans to take more moderate positions in expectation of the national election. Which causes them to lose the more....energetic parts of their base.

So I'm all for letting The Donald continue to speak. He's only helping Hilary or another moderate Dem.

Also, and I'm sure this is just the media cherry picking photos, every picture I see of Trump is unflattering. Like watching a sun dried zombie with a tupee giving a rictus smile or snarl. Makes Howard Dean look like Mister Rogers.

[smjjames]

The problem is that I don't see Trump deflating anytime soon.

Not sure what it would take for him to deflate other than the media completely ignoring him and we know that isn't going to happen.

Then again, the more he talks, the worse it gets for the republicans. Heck, the RNC is desperate to tape his mouth shut and drop him off on a tiny remote island in the arctic/antarctic.