Dr. Strangelove

The Republican party is poised to dominate the midterms in 2022. Democrats probably aren't going to win the majority in the Senate until the 2030s. It'll be interesting if Trump decides to run in 2024. I'd wager Trump has a 50-60% chance to win. A non-Trump candidate is probably higher. Democrats face a host of struggles and they don't have easy answers for.

Head coaches almost always have 4 years on their contracts, this is to pitch to recruits that the coach will be here for the duration of the time with the program. Long story short, Frost will always have 4 years on his deal and will thus always be owed 20 million. Nebraska could simply not extend him, but they'd be telling every recruit in the country that the guy is likely to be canned at the end of the season.

Nebraska has the resources to pay 6-7M so it's possible. The problem is if Kiffin is willing to stay long term, or if he would bounce to a program with easier recruiting and lower expectations.

I'm still waiting on the apologists to rationalize keeping Frost when he's going to finish 3-9 and with the worst recruiting class in the B1G (and in modern Nebraska history). There is no foundation here. He's put this program in the ground so far the next guy is going to spend half a decade fixing it.

I mean, if both parties want it, why does a label matter? They can call it the Bill for Space Exploration and include paid family leave. I don't think the designation matters, if you want it just do it. Dems do want it, but two Senators one of which from a deeply Red state, killed it. It's a shame that the actions of two Democratic Senators not helping people has turned into "see Democrats don't want it" when 48 Senators Representing the majority of Americans (as well as enjoying popular support in the 80% range) approve of it.

If they wanted it, they would've included it in the bi-partisan infrastructure bill. But they don't. It's why they immediately pivoted away with the rhetoric that "leave isn't infrastructure" and whatever other nonsense they were spewing a few months ago. I genuinely hope that, in the future, Republicans actually want to pass leave because Democrats would vote for that bill tomorrow. But if there were any Republican votes, it would've happened for everybody already.

No. I'm critiquing your willingness to drink the MAGA-ade so readily in order to rationalize your party trying to cut down a member for daring to criticize the dear leader of your party.

Yeah. 2 of them did. Is this your defense of the 50 Republicans who are also against paid family leave?

Ha, you nailed it. The other important detail @nic might not be aware of is that Tucker Carlson (and Fox News in general) is by far the most watched cable news show in the country, by a considerable margin. The reason we should be critical of Tucker Carlson is because he influences the opinions of millions each night.

Yeah, 48 Democrats support it while 2 Democrats and 50 (which you may not be aware is the entire GOP delegation in the Senate) Republicans are against it. What exactly are you trying to get across here?

Oh yes, Liz Cheney, somebody so Republican she sold out her own sister to shill anti-LGTBQ crap early in her career, daughter of mega-Republican d!(k Cheney, has been a Representative of one of the most solidly red states in the country couldn't message ideas for a party that didn't even bother to have a platform to talk about during the previous election. You do realize that you're so caught up in the MAGA-verse of Trump that you're willing to throw a Representative under the bus for no reason other than Trump wanted her thrown, right? Lay off the party-line talking points for awhile.

Nothing exemplifies modern conservatism more than the faux-outrage white parents have for CRT. Add a dash of anti-intellectualism, a splash of xenophobia, top it off with a nice sprinkle of feeling victimized. Be careful not to add any critical thinking (or even a shred of understanding) and WHAM, you have a modern conservative.

It's primarily Manchin, with his insinuation that Billionaires create jobs. Obviously Senator Sinema is responsible for pairing down the bill as well, such as the government negotiating drug prices. Most find her strange: Manchin can say and do what he wants, there's nothing Democrats can do about it. Senator Sinema can be primaried easily in a state turning more and more blue. Her political calculus is pretty strange. But let's not forget the 50 Republicans that don't support paid family leave, money for climate change, or money to expand Medicare to cover other services. All of this proposals are extremely popular. They're responsible as well.

It absolutely is true, demographics vote in predictable ways throughout the country. Right now, educational attainment is one of the biggest indicators of how one will vote. More data is needed than just 1 question and polling is helpful to determine which demographics are motivated to vote or not. Polling helps determine trends in those demographics. So far that trend is bad for Democrats, this paywalled article from the Economist gets into it. It's embedded into the tweet by the author: https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1453440176567562244?t=NjWmKeJEdxkdZDbsBxVr2g&s=19

If you're referring to paid leave, support is overwhelming. This Pew Research article concludes that paid leave of various kinds has 80%+ approval. This poll was comprehensive and conducted in 2017. Polls today show similar levels of high support, particularly for maternity leave. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/03/23/support-for-paid-leave-policies/ A wealth tax on Billionaires polls high. According to this Reuters poll, in the 64% range, with even a 53% among Republicans. https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1Z9141 This poll shows 67% support and 53% (again) amongst Republicans for a billionaire wealth tax. https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/484771-poll-67-of-voters-believe-billionaires-should-pay-wealth-tax%3famp So what are they incorrect about exactly?

Don't forgot not being able to disavow white Supremecy right before the Proud Boys shout out. But the thing about Trump supporters is they see and hear only what they want. The ability to ignore or explain away things is truly extraordinary.

Mike Riley gets too much hate and the problems he faced were deep within the Athletic Department, some of that rot is still there. Also, Frost has put the program in extreme decline. There isn't a foundation to work with and the new staff - whenever they get here - faces a more difficult rebuild than Frost ever did.

All of this is completely somewhat true, but I would push back on if we can determine the voting in Wisconsin is truly independent of the country as a whole. Given a particular candidates strength nationally, whether they win the popular vote by 2.5% or 5%, some of those gains come from Wisconsin. This is because voters across the country tend to vote the same way. A white male without a college degree in California votes the same way as a white male without a college degree in Wisconsin (or wherever they are). The same is true across nearly all demographics. The reason we can use the national popular vote to see how a state might vote is by looking at the demographic voting patterns of the country as a whole then we can look at the demographic makeup of the state to see how it might vote. In 2020, the electorate is extremely simple. You can ask a voter a few simple questions and be able to tell with a high degree of accuracy how they will vote. 1.) Education Level (some college or those with degrees vote for Democrats) 2.) Race/Ethnicity (minorities favor Democrats, but it varies by which one). 3.) Sex (women favor Democrats). So, because we know that Black Women vote for Democrats 95% of the time, simply check how many live in that state. Same with males without a college degree. It's easy to extrapolate, and as such, why states aren't all that independent of the poplar vote. The only thing that matters is the demographic makeup of the state. And in the upper midwest, those demographics are trending Republican.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-red-or-blue-is-your-state-your-congressional-district/amp/ This 538 Article has a good explained on PVI and how it's used to see what it might take to win an election. In 2016, Trump won Wisconsin by .7%. In an election Hillary won the national popular vote by 2.1%. This means that the PVI for that election for Wisconsin was R+2.8. (Meaning that had Hillary won the national popular vote by 2.8%, the exact partisan lean of Wisconsin, she could've won the state). In 2020 Joe Biden won Wisconsin by .1% and the national popular vote by 4.4%, giving Wisconsin a PVI of R+4.3. Even though Joe Biden won Wisconsin, the electorate there went from 2.8% more Republican than the country as a whole in 2016 to 4.3% more Republican in 2020. These trends seem to be continuing. In order to win Wisconsin in 2024, a Democratic candidate may have to win the popular vote by ~5%. Which may not be possible.

We're saying the same thing in different ways. In Colorado, Republican would have to win the national popular vote (because PVI is relative to a national average) by 3% over the other candidate to break even. If a Democrat wins the national popular vote by 3%, they'll win states with a D+3 value or higher most of the time and lose states with a value of D+2 most of the time. It's not exact and not exactly what PVI is designed to do, but because PVI gives you the partisan makeup of a state it makes a decent enough tool to predict what it might take to win. (Note: this was not the case prior to 2016, but the electorate is extremely partisan and votes along party lines more than ever) But to my point, no matter what metrics used, the problem Democrats are facing is that battleground states are moving to the right compared to the nation as a whole. It's going to be increasingly difficult for them to win states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The gains democrats are making in other states don't seem to be happening fast enough to offset their losses in the upper-midwest. Their best hope is that Georgia/Arizona turn Blue before Wisconsin/Michigan/Pennsylvania turn red. If Democrats can make that happen they will be in good shape in 2024, if not they will have to hope Texas turns blue in 2032/36 when they will have massive the EC advantage.

I get how it's calculated and what it means. But you can absolutely use it to guess what it will take to win an election. If Colorado is a D+3 state, based on the previous election cycles, we can assume it would take a Republican candidate to win the national popular vote by 3% in order to win that state. You can also use it to project trends, if a state is growing more or less partisan compared to the nation as a whole. Colorado is likely to be a D+4.5 state in 2024, for example, but it's impossible to know for sure until the votes are cast. That doesn't mean it's set in stone, it's completely possible for a candidate to overperform and win when PVI suggests otherwise (like Manchin winning in W. Virginia). It's not the end all be all because you can use far more sophisticated metrics to predict elections. But you can use PVI for a simple discussions on trends concerning voting, what it takes for a candidate to win, etc.

The Cook Political Report uses something called the 'Partisan Voter Index or PVI. It's a measure given to the country as a whole and to individual states. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index Basically, the entire country has a PVI of R+4.4, meaning that in order to win an election the Democrat would have to win by 4.4% or higher. (Another example would be Colorado, which has a value of D+3. Meaning that a Republican would have to win the national popular vote by 3% or more to win the state.) Each and every state and congressional district has a PVI value. If you know the national popular vote, you can use PVI to project the winners. The concern for Democrats is the PVI of the electoral college is trending away from them. So much so that it may not be possible to win in 2024 no matter the candidates or policy positions.

Well yeah, if they did that they'd vote for Democrats. Can't have that! It's a slippery slope to the wealthy paying taxes, a higher living standard citizens in Europe enjoy, and god knows what else.

I highly disagree. His chances if he decides to run are higher than 50%, probably north of 60. Even with people who dislike him, never Trumpers included, it's offset by the structural advantages built into the electoral college. The Republican advantage in the Electoral College was ~2.7% in 2016 and ~4.4% in 2020. This advantage is growing, likely reaching 5-5.5% in 2024. It may not be possible to win a popular vote by enough to offset the Republican electoral college advantage in 2024 or 2028. Things may flip when Texas turns blue in the 2030s.

This proves my point. None of the things I mentioned are debatable. But by seeing reality for what it is, you would call it a liberal news source. I guess facts and reality have a well known liberal bias.