- 0 Posts
- 18 Comments
Yes, that’s true. The poll averages themselves haven’t moved much either though. And the reliance on the fundamentals forecast has me nervous, but they definitely do it for a reason. When they developed the models and looked at poll history the pattern they found was the fundamentals had a big influence on what the polls would look like closer to the election and the eventual result. Polls closer to the election are more predictive than the fundamentals. Polls farther away from the election less so. There’s at least some reason to think things have changed enough maybe the fundamentals aren’t as fundamental for this race, but I guess we won’t know until afterward.
Exactly, I think because races have been so close lately, and the probabilities are ending up close to 50% often, people sometimes unintentionally conflate them with poll numbers. 53% to 46% would be a massive poll lead. For probabilities though in this situation it’s the same as saying they have even odds of winning. Look at those massive 95% confidence intervals, the race is in a statistical dead heat. It’s kind of remarkable how steady it has been despite all the wild events that have happened.
He knows that Biden and democratic policies have been good to unions, heck the teamsters pension fund was even bailed out by them in 2022, preventing large pension cuts to 350,000 union workers.
Going to be a real leopard ate my face moment if Trump wins and fills the national labor board with anti union officials again.
It’s especially inexplicable because in straw polls Biden has a clear lead in support among teamster members.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/11/us/politics/teamsters-trump-biden.html
“But you know,” Mr. Palmer added, “you can pick up a snake and play with it, but if you play with it enough, it’s going to bite you eventually.”
Is it okay if I still vote for both of those things at once? Because she’s been shockingly incompetent in cases that have nothing to do with Trump too.
It’s obvious she’s a Trump’s stooge though. First supreme court nomination by Trump if he wins for sure. No surer way to fail to the top of a fascist kelptocratic system then by doing favors for the boss.
Theoretically yes, but that’s not what happened. Also not sure if average in op’s case is referring to mean or median, the word average could refer to either. But mean and median are close in this case. Median wage growth statistics are readily available, here’s median:
https://www.atlantafed.org/chcs/wage-growth-tracker
And if you dig into data more, you’ll find real wage growth (wage growth minus inflation) was strongest in the lowest income bracket, not the highest.
https://www.epi.org/publication/swa-wages-2022/
That’s not to say that just a couple years of higher wage growth in low income brackets will erase the US’s enormous long-standing problem with income inequality. And the top 10% have still been doing better than upper middle class with recent wage growth.
Comment from a ublock developer on this:
There is a lot of chatter in the last days about how Youtube is slow with content blockers. Those performance issues affect only the latest version of both Adblock Plus (3.22) & AdBlock (5.17), and afflict more than just Youtube. uBO is not affected.
Leaders of the tax-writing committees in the House and Senate are working on a deal to expand the existing child tax credit in exchange for extending certain business tax credits
Republicans: No money to help end child poverty unless corporations get handouts too
But seriously when this credit was active, it alone cut child poverty by a third. Imagine what we could get with a true universal basic income. A good first step at least though.
They’re the secretary of state. Every state has one. Their primary job is administering elections in the state. This includes applying rules for eligibility of candidates. For instance if you were 30 and applied to be put on the ballet for president, it would be the secretary of state who says no, you must be at least 35, we’re not putting you on. Of course their decisions about various things can be challenged in court and often are.
In the Colorado case the decision first came from a judge, because there the secretary of state declined to take him off the ballot. Colorado voters sued their secretary of state for neglect or breach of duty for allowing Trump on the ballot in violation of the fourteenth amendment.
Here’s the ruling from that case where you can see it was technically the secretary of state for Colorado who was sued:
In Maine no one had to sue the secretary of state first, the secretary of state just said straight up, hey trump you’re not eligible, 14th amendment applies, just like they would have if he didn’t meet other qualifications like being a natural born citizen or being at least the age of 35. Now likely Trump will sue the secretary of state in Maine to try and get the courts to put him back on. They also became involved in the litigation in Colorado after it started, since he had an interest in the case.
Eh, the fine they’re paying is over double the amount of taxes saved (~$50 million dollars) and the settlement says they have to cooperate with investigations on those accounts, so looks like the justice department is going after the account holders in addition to the bank. Might be a rare instance where it didn’t pay in the end for them to help tax evaders.
There’s a lot of problems with this. Just some include that it’s a blog and doesn’t link to the actual study so it’s impossible to see what’s going on with the this report. They also never explain what this “reliability score” even means or what’s included in that. Then they start doing things like using a percent to compare the scores saying this is percent more reliable. But we still don’t even know what this score is, and comparing as a percent may not make any sense to say depending on what the scores are and how they’re calculated. Unfortunately you can’t really draw any conclusions from what’s in this article.
It’s a tough call. Many forums have a rule against changing the title at all. People posting are often used to this and post the title as is from the article. The idea being to help prevent editorializing and clickbait on the part of the poster. Every headline these days though seems to be some variation of blatant clickbait or so and so “slams” this or “destroys” that. At this point I probably trust randos on the internet to make headlines more than publishers.
It is covering it, for workers on average. Your employer is stiffing you compared to the rest of the economy then if you didn’t also get 20% of a raise compared to your salary in 2019.
Real wages in October 2019 (normalized to 1982-1984 dollars) were $10.95/hr on average in October 2019. In October 2023 (again normalized to 1982-1984 dollars) they were $11.05/hr (which is $34/hr in current dollars). So as we stand in October the inflation from 2019 to now has been fully compensated for in wages with a little bit of an increase in real dollars. Wages have been growing faster than inflation since January 2023. Hopefully that will continue as labor remains in high demand and unions continue to make gains. Union gains even help non unionized individuals in their industries whose employers also will have to give pay raises to remain competitive with union jobs.
Not saying even more couldn’t be done to combat things like income inequality and poverty and many other issues, things weren’t exactly perfect in 2019 either. Just frustrated by the current media narratives casting hyperbolic doom and gloom in the economy and the potential of that narrative to send trump back into the white house.
Sources: 2019 BLS report
First I think both approval voting and ranked choice are both vastly superior to first past the post.
Ranked choice does have some weak points and can create some non optimal outcomes on occasion. Approval voting has its own distortions and issues too though.
https://electionscience.org/voting-methods/ten-critiques-and-defenses-on-approval-voting/
I’m personally a little undecided about which one I like better. It might make the most sense to use different voting systems for different types of elections to minimize sub optimal outcomes and avoid their respective weaknesses as much as possible. But honestly I don’t care, either is great, anything except first past the post please.
When the supreme court shredded a New York gun control law last year (a law that had stood for a century), their reasoning was unless a gun regulation or something very similar to that regulation was already in place at the time the bill of rights was written, then it is not allowed based on their interpretation of the second ammendment. As the dissenting justices pointed out, this of course, is crazy, and if actually applied like how they said it would invalidate pretty much any gun control we still have that hasn’t been taken away already. And isn’t similar at all to how we look at standards for other things in the bill of rights.
So honestly the fifth circuit is probably correctly applying this reasoning here, and many gun laws are in court over this new standard. This was a standard created by the Supreme Court last year though, the fifth circuit didn’t pull it out of their ass this time. But like any of this “originalist” nonsense they aren’t gonna apply it consistently, just when it suits them. I would expect the supreme court to let this law stand this time to avoid yet another very unpopular decision highlighting their extremist second amendment interpretations, even though it doesn’t live up to the ridiculous standard they created last year. Expect them to start applying that standard again capriciously at any time though.
Having so much money that it’s hard to even conceptualize, and you decide its best use is to hurt trans children. Disgusting.
If they were actually concerned about their well being, how about starting with the widespread youth lgbt homelessness across the country? Or you know, actually improving their access to health care instead of working to cut it off?
This drives me up the wall. People act like doctors can calmly watch someone decompensating and be like, okay, right now is the point that they will die without an abortion so we can intervene. If you wait until someone is about to die, well they’re probably about to die no matter what you do. Like premature rupture of membranes for instance, if it happens early enough your doctor may be like, there’s a very low likelihood you can carry this fetus without intact membranes long enough to get to viability before you become septic. So you do the abortion to prevent this and save their life easily. You don’t wait until the poor woman is on death’s door and be like, okay now we can pull out the dead fetus and rotting placenta. And maybe we’ll be able to rescue you from severe septic shock let’s cross our fingers. But that’s what these lawmakers have created, intentionally or unintentionally. That’s just one example but there’s many other similar situations that could happen to anyone. Even if everything is very clear to the doctor, all it takes is some asshole conservative prosecutor to second guess them, harass them, drag them to court, revoke their license, get some hack pro life doctor to testify against them, get the doctor thrown in jail, etc. And anyways it’s a healthcare decision between a patient and their doctor, the government has no place here, except for maybe helping to ensure access for all individuals who need prenatal care. I feel for the doctors that have to choose between these things though and would never want to be in that position.
People keep seeming to forget about the super delegate reform Bernie fought for. They are still there now, 15% of all the delegates (a lot of the super delegates being democratic elected officials like members of congress since that automatically gives the status). But they can’t vote in the first ballot any longer. They could only vote in a contested election in subsequent ballots, after all the other pledged delegates are unbound as well.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegate
Even before those reforms, they never really made a difference in any convention, except possibly 1984 when they helped push Mondale from a plurality to a majority by voting for him on the first ballot.
I’m not personally in favor of them at all, but it’s not nearly as bad as it’s made out to be sometimes. If we go to an open convention though, unless there’s a majority choice on the first ballot, they may play a role on subsequent ballots.