2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Nevelo »
    @Nis: Go back and look at his independent percentages. This is off memory, but I think he had a 10 point spread. It is some giant myth that is being built that Romney didn't win the independents because he wasn't somehow palatable to them. The dude wasn't palatable because he didn't have real convictions. It was painfully obvious that he was superficial with his arguments, and trying too hard to be this or that.

    We did cover that. Romney won independents but he lost moderates. It's a fine but important distinction. Independents might favor one party or the other instead of being truly in the middle. Moderates favor whoever appears closer to the center.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Nevelo »
    However, if I remember correctly, 4 million republicans stayed home during Romney's election. Romney had a weak turn out from his base and as a result lost the election.

    Even if all of those 4 million had voted for Romney he still would have lost the popular vote and probably the electoral vote given that he was over 100 EVs behind Obama. Romney didn't lose the election because Republicans didn't vote for him; he lost because he had a very weak ground game and wasn't palatable enough to moderates.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Nevelo »
    @Nis: Well, they fooled me if their plan was to actually be obstructionist. All I've seen is them roll over repeatedly, even when they have the upper hand. Even so, they get called obstructionist. They get called obstructionist even when they are explicitly working with the Democrates on something. So, in my opinion, that should be the least of their worries (though, sadly it probably is one of their greatest worries).

    • ObamaCare was originally called RomneyCare; health insurance exchanges were a Heritage Foundation idea. Republicans have opposed it mostly because it was a win for Obama.
    • Boehner pledges "to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can." McConnell stated, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Source.
    • Federal judge vacancies have increased since Obama was elected because Republicans in Congress prevent nominations from coming up for a vote. Even at the end of Obama's term, confirmations are still slow.

    Quote from Nevelo »
    Also, I'm glad you mentioned Kennedy, because he is a good example of what happens when the nomination process is properly fought over. Reagan tried 2 other nominees that were more conservative, before he had to compromise with Kennedy. I doubt I heard any Democrates complaining about subverting law by not giving Reagan Bork or Ginsburg.

    I brought up Kennedy because I hope you'd fall into my trap! </sarcasm>
    Really, though, Kennedy is a great example because when was he nominated and confirmed? During the last year of Reagan's presidency. So again, if Obama nominates a moderate like Kennedy, should Senate Republicans stick to their guns or accept the olive branch?
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Nevelo »
    Republicans will be called obstructionist regardless of what they do. This has been illustrated quite often during this administration.

    That's been modus operandi since 2010. Not because they disagreed with Obama but because that's what they promised their constituents in gerrymandered districts.

    Quote from Nevelo »

    There is absolutely no reason for them to start out with a weak hand, or just throw out all their political tools over a fatalistic notion that they will always lose support over it. To the contrary, like or dislike Trump, I think he shows you can be pretty blunt and people will support you. But acting limp wrist and linguine spine'd won't get a lick of support.

    It's not about bending over. It's about recognizing good political plays. If Obama nominates and well qualified, moderate candidate who could swing either way like Kennedy should Senate Republicans hold firm and refuse to confirm just to appear strong and idealistic? If their goal is to avoid a liberal justice, not confirming a moderate like Kennedy fails that goal.

    Quote from Nevelo »

    Edit: it's interesting how you say that Sanders would go 4 years without an appointee if the Republicans don't cave. Why is it that they must cave for anyone to get appointed? It wouldn't be hard to get the votes with a moderate nominee. Are you implying that Obama and Sanders will refuse to put up a moderate?

    Obama can't nominate a liberal if he expects confirmation. That's obvious. I don't think Obama wants a drawn out fight but rather another confirmed nominee for his legacy.

    But if Senate Republicans make the nomination general election a referendum on the SCOTUS, and Sanders or Clinton wins the general election, it would be political suicide to refuse confirmation on every candidate for longer than a few months. If they make the rules and then refuse to abide by the results then they are petty and people will vote them out in 2018. The long game here does not favor Republicans.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Nevelo »

    Republicans can ask the president to do anything they want him to do. It's called politics. Anyways, I'm not going to go over this again, as you keep going in circles with your argument.

    The problem is that it makes the Senate Republicans look petty. Even though they could go with the process and stonewall any nominee, saying that it shouldn't even get to that point makes it look like they're crying, "Since it's not us who get to nominate someone we don't want anybody to." That comes off as childish. Let Obama do his job and then do yours by rejecting all the nominees.

    Now I know why they don't want Obama to nominate someone. It's not about getting a chance for a Republican president to do it (because frankly none of the Republican candidates have a good chance at winning the general election), but because they don't want to appear obstructionist for a whole election year. They don't want the presidential election to become a referendum on how the Senate just can't work with a Democratic president. They don't want to be painted as petulant children who take their ball home when things don't go their way. Stonewalling for a year will result in lost seats and the potential to lose the Senate.

    But let's say Obama gives in and doesn't nominate anybody. And then let's say Sanders wins the election (very unlikely) while Republicans retain the Senate. They can't not confirm his nomination for four years. Right now they're gambling: giving up a moderate nomination from Obama with the risk of getting very liberal nominees from Sanders (or just slightly less liberal nominees from Clinton). Given the crop of Republican candidates that's a pretty risky bet.

    What I'd like to see just for the show is for Obama to appoint himself as a recess appointment. Imagine the gnashing of teeth that would cause in the Senate. Granted that will never happen but it would make for some interesting events.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Blast From The Past
    7th Sea and Star Trek TCG were pretty good. Overpower was okay. Never could get into the Star Wars CCG; way too hard to acquire the chase cards and eventually there were just too many "silver bullets."
    Posted in: Magic General
  • posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Nevelo »
    @RIs: Read the rest of that article. I mean, it hints at it in the title even. You missed the bit where it shows Trump's support is stronger among independents and democrats than republicans.

    Maybe we're reading the articles differently. I read both articles (yours and mine) as saying those who like Trump, really like Trump, but not that his support is strong across swaths of people. I'm not exactly sure about what the charts in the article you link show (what's the X axis show? Percentage? Number of responses?), but I believe it's saying that among respondents, if you were a white male with less than a college education you like Trump.

    Quote from Nevelo »

    Incorrect, Romney winning independents is an established and well known fact. A simple Google search would enlighten you on that.

    I concede the point. I blame my failing memory and possibly getting confused over moderates vs. independents. Romney might have won the independents, but for those who identified as moderates, he tanked.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Nevelo »
    From what I'm aware, Trump pulls support from a fairly wide cross section of people.

    Nope. If you like Trump, there's a better than fair chance you're an older white male with less than a college education. If you're anybody else, there's a fair chance you don't.

    Quote from Nevelo »

    As we saw with Romney, winning the independents doesn't necessarily win you the presidency.

    Romney didn't win independents. That's why he lost. He won the nomination on the backs of party elite and by sticking it out while the Republican base cycled through not-Romneys.

    A presidential candidate must win a nominal portion of independent voters to win the election. There is just not enough support from your base to counteract an opponent who can mobilize his or her own base and appeal to large swaths of the middle. McCain learned that the hard way.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Highroller »
    Bush's campaign didn't stall, it never moved.

    Touché.

    Quote from Typho0nn »

    As for Sanders vs Trump, I think the left is going to put Hilary up, which will lose to Trump.

    You didn't read the article I linked above. Trump is very much disliked right now. You can't win the election without the support of the middle, and the middle unfavorability rating completely cancels out Republican favorability. And that's before taking into Democrat unfavorability. People begrudgingly vote for the politician they dislike less; Trump is the most disliked of all by far.

    It's possible that Trump could pivot back towards the middle should he win the nomination, but he's got a long way to go after putting himself so far outside of mainstream thought.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Nevelo »

    That's hard for me to see. Rubio has some serious issues from the Gang of 8 bill, which probably puts a ceiling on his support levels.

    Look at the Endorsement Primary. Who is getting endorsements and at what rate is a better predictor than polls at this time. Rubio has been on a tear since November while Bush (the biggest establishment candidate) has stalled (although Graham's recent endorsement might lead to more for Bush). Rubio has made himself out to be the establishment alternative to Trump and Cruz although he's closer to Cruz than he is to Bush or Christie. Nice bit of political maneuvering by Rubio.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    I'll try to inject some rationality back into this. From my favorite source, 538.com: Donald Trump Is Really Unpopular With General Election Voters. Somebody with a net favorability of -25 just isn't going to win a general election. That would be like everyone deciding on eating at the local dive bar for a corporate lunch.

    And now for more math! tldr: The early primaries favor Cruz and Trump, but as long as Rubio meets certain percentage thresholds, his path to the nomination is much easier because of the later primaries.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    I will leave this here. In regards to the Ramussen poll, points 3, 7, and 11 all apply.

    tldr; Any sort of poll on the general election now is worthless.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Highroller »

    I would add a third question, which is when are most candidates going to have the good sense to drop out?

    Some after Iowa, most of the rest after New Hampshire. We're close enough that any candidates already on the bubble will hold out until Iowa just in case they can get a bounce. After New Hampshire there will likely be just a few candidates left.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on MTG JSON - New website provides MTG card data in JSON format
    Quote from TheOnlyDJCat »
    Hi, @Andarilhomtg

    influenced by the tips from you and others I finally managed to remove my simple json parser and included a thirdparty library (SuperEasyJson). Now everything is working again!
    But SuperEasyJson needs 20 seconds to deserialize the json file, compared to 2 secs before Frown

    That's unfortunate. I'm not sure how SuperEasyJson handles parsing; some parsers are just more efficient. The manner in which you use the file can affect speed as well. Streaming the json, i.e. deserializing an object at a time, should be faster than deserializing the whole file into memory. Maybe compare SuperEasyJson to another parser like libjson. SEJ's own readme states that it's not designed for speed or memory efficiency but rather simplicity.
    Posted in: Third Party Products
  • posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from Kahedron »

    With an opinion and outlook from across the pond I'd say the opposite. The campaign so far appears to have coalesced around the twin lunacies of Trump and Carson, and that what appears to have been a reasonable candidate has had to fall upon his own sword to due lack of money and poor polling figures in what is a very wide field.

    It's still really early into the campaigning season. Trump and Carson are stars that burn brightly but will eventually burn out. Like I said way back, when the field begins to thin those up-for-grabs voters are likely not going to coalesce behind Trump or Carson. It happened last time in 2012 when there was a good number of candidates and it will happen again this year. The only reason this year seems different is because there are so many Republican candidates in the ring.

    Quote from Kahedron »

    Or if a new convention were created where by the 2 parties would put forward their leaders in the Senate/House of representatives forward for the tickets.

    That's a whole 'nother ball o' wax. The Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House are both pretty powerful positions. It's likely neither would want the nomination.

    Quote from Kahedron »

    As a side note with your campaign cycle effectively lasting 2 years surely the money needed to put someone into the white house could be better spent elsewhere.

    Absolutely. Not much can be done about that though.
    Posted in: Debate
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.