The Thin Blue Wall

Avatar

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

111 Responses

  1. Avatar Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    *Yawn*

    This election isn’t over yet? Rolls over and goes back to sleep.Report

  2. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    I dig that theory 100%.

    That said, what seems to throw a wrench into it from where I sit is the fact that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are both polling at more than 6% between them (I tried to find these numbers from the official Ordinary Times stats guy, Sam Wang, but I couldn’t find a 4-way poll on his website, just 2 way polls).

    I submit to you the following:

    There ain’t no freaking way that Gary Johnson’s share added to Jill Stein’s share will add up to 3% between them. No freaking way.

    Assuming that there is no freaking way that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, together, will add up to 3%, I’m stuck wondering if that 3% of voters are more likely to stay home or more likely to show up and vote, for real, for one of the two real candidates.

    And if it’s the latter, who they were lying to themselves/the pollsters about who they were really going to be voting for.

    And which of the two real candidates it’s more likely that they’d feel it somewhat necessary to lie to themselves about eventually voting for.Report

  3. Avatar Don Zeko
    Ignored
    says:

    This is also why McMullen will not win Utah and throw the election to the House of Representatives. McMullen can only put up numbers that make him competitive in Utah if Trump is doing poorly enough nationally that it’s not close. When Trump was within a point or two, he was winning Utah handily.Report

  4. Avatar Doctor Jay
    Ignored
    says:

    I always understood references to The Wall as referring to a very dedicated level of support for Clinton in a bunch of states, not just swing states, or to the very strong support among black voters she has.Report

  5. Avatar Kim
    Ignored
    says:

    There’s one pundit that keeps claiming that Trump has a 70% chance of winning.Report

  6. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    The issue of course is that this looks like it is going to be a plurality election with Clinton getting around 49 percent of the vote by current projections and Trump getting around 42-44 depending.

    Here is Nate Cohn on the polls:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/upshot/get-ready-for-another-swing-in-the-polls-but-not-necessarily-a-shift-in-the-race.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fupshot&action=click&contentCollection=upshot&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

    Many of these dissatisfied voters are extremely likely to vote for one candidate or another, but they are not happy about it. When the news isn’t so good for the candidate they’re likelier to support, they say they’re “undecided” rather than bring themselves to admit — either to themselves or to the polling interviewer — that they’ll support their candidate. These same swings in enthusiasm have an effect on whether pollsters judge them to be likely voters, or even the propensity for voters to respond to surveys at all.

    This theory helps explain why the most abrupt movements in the polls seem to come when the race is near one of its two extremes. Mrs. Clinton surged after the first presidential debate in part because she was near her low point heading into it. The allegations about Mr. Trump’s sexual misconduct didn’t hurt him as much in the polls as his first debate performance, for instance, because Mrs. Clinton’s marginal supporters had already flocked back to her column after the debate. There were fewer voters for her to lure back.

    Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      Fingers crossed. My most hoped-for outcome for election day is a plurality outcome.Report

      • Avatar North in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        I, of course, would love a blue blowout. Seemed plausible for a while, then more of the email nonsense pops up and it’s back to being a pipe dream. Oh well, I’ll just hope for the Presidency and Senate.

        I’m assuming you’d like a plurality as a vote of no confidence in the big two/vote of strength for the libertarians?Report

        • Avatar Jaybird in reply to North
          Ignored
          says:

          I suspect that a blowout would accelerate whatever might happen.

          A plurality would put brakes on. Or try to.Report

          • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            Obama had a blowout. It made him poltically complacent.Report

            • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kolohe
              Ignored
              says:

              I remember 2009-10 a little differently, I guess.

              Though I can see how 2011-2016 would look that way.Report

              • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Obama tried to do stuff in 09-10 and even got some stuff done.

                But his complacency, specifically he and all his acolytes thinking “Obama is awesome, who could be against Obama?” got Scott Brown a Senator’s seat and then led to a complete shellacking in November 2010.

                When you’re entire political legacy is dependent on a specific piece of a political coalition, it’s unconscionable to allow that piece of the political coalition to get away from you. And he didn’t even get something good for it, e.g. true love instead of a Frey wife.

                The subsequent midterm losses wouldn’t even be something to affix blame on him if it wasn’t for losing Kennedy’s seat. But the midterm losses showed he and his minions didn’t learn a darn thing from the Oakley debacle.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Kolohe
                Ignored
                says:

                LOL. Complacency is a funny way to describe “had a literal gun put to his head”Report

              • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Kim
                Ignored
                says:

                I keep forgetting you believe that.

                I shouldn’t, it’s hilarious. Kinda racist. Actually a lot racist, but hilarious.

                (Clearly the black man only understands the literal gun to the head, whereas the white Presidents understand the threat without needing the props and large lettering.)Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Morat20
                Ignored
                says:

                morat20,
                If you grant that it actually happened (which, I will say, is a lot to grant), then the morons who thought they needed an actual gun were white, and a rather insulated bunch, at that.

                Of course, if you want to have some real fun, we should get into why the neoliberals (on Wall Street) got us into WWI.. and WWII in the bargain.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Morat20
                Ignored
                says:

                You wouldn’t believe how racist the Senator from Saudi Arabia is, either.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Kolohe
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m more in agreement with this analysis than not. I’ve always read Obama’s first couple years as them living their own campaign rhetoric that they were a new way and were above “politics as usual”. They also either
                A) couldn’t imagine the GOP would embark of the cynical total opposition strategy or
                B) couldn’t think of any way to prove it except by letting the GOP show it by doing it.

                I think the 2010 whupping was damn near unavoidable with the combination of the great recession and the right wing response to the left basically winning a contest they’d been fighting over for a century. I do agree that Oakley was heavily on O and Co. It would have done them a hell of a lot of good if they could have run the ACA through the normal process of getting its legislative final coat of paint.Report

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                What I find fascinating about this election is mainly that O&co ran the table in ’08, but within a decade they will have possibly pissed the whole thing away. If Hills doesn’t win, the R’s will have turned that whole losing “a contest they’d been fighting over for a century” to the destruction of the D’s at pretty much every level of gov’t.

                Hillary has to win not only the presidency but take the senate to just hold on. And even then, they have a much worse situation in ’18 regarding seats held in the senate, they have lost even deep blue governorships in areas such as Maryland and Mass.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                Hillary is not the democratic party. Hillary is pro-neocon and pro-neoliberal. She wins if the Republicans win the House and she takes the presidency.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                I think predicting destruction of the Dems at every level of government is a bit hyperbolic (I approve, I love hyperbole). It does beg the question; what liberals goals are; political success or implementing their preferred policy? I’m pretty happy with what the behavior of the ‘liberal’ party says is their answer to that question.Report

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, to stray a little bit, they are part-and-parcel. You can’t have goals achieved without legislative success. You can’t have legislative success without goals achieved.

                Otherwise, you are out in the woods like Labour right now. But by gosh, they are sure showing everyone just how liberal they are! (Not that we libertarians are doing much better.)Report

              • Avatar Anne in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                @aaron-david

                don’t know why but made me think of this

                “We’re more of the love, blood, and rhetoric school. Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can’t give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They’re all blood, you see.”? Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead

                Report

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Anne
                Ignored
                says:

                That play will always have a soft spot in my heart.Report

              • Avatar Anne in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                It plays a huge part in my life 😉Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Anne
                Ignored
                says:

                I always conflate it with Waiting for Godot. Not exactly sure why.Report

              • Avatar Will Truman in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                There was an argument for this about a year ago, but fortunately for the Democrats the Republican voters had no interests in clenching the missing link.Report

              • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                Do not underestimate the ability of Republicans to completely blow the opportunity they’ve been served up, @aaron-david.Report

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Burt Likko
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, I wouldn’t dream of it councilor. But, considering who blew up an opportunity* in the first place, well, it would be a bit of tit-for-tat!

                *Along with don’t fight a land war in asia, don’t barely pass unpopular legislation just before a census year.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes, they could have had healthcare reform or they could have played super safe and maybe* have had a shot at, what, a less bad whipeout in 2010? I think the Dems chose pretty well. Especially since we know, post hoc, that the GOP was going to refuse to participate and was going to pitch a fit over whatever was done no matter what Obama had proposed in place of the ACA.

                *Assuming their base didn’t ditch them and stay home in raw disgust at them bailing on health care reform.Report

              • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                I forget who said it, but The Point of having a Congressional Majority is to Do Things, especially if you’re a Democrat.Report

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Jesse Ewiak
                Ignored
                says:

                Sure, sort of. If the point of having a majority is to pass a crappy version of reform and then get your electoral ass handed to you after you had just run the table.

                Let alone do it in a census year, which incidentally gave your opponents damn near complete control of state level gov’t while giving them the house by unprecedented gains. And while I know the left isn’t a fan of state level gov’t, it is the nature of our system.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Jesse Ewiak
                Ignored
                says:

                I forget who said it, but The Point of having a Congressional Majority is to Do Things, especially if you’re a Democrat.

                “We came here to do a job, not keep a job.”

                Nanci PelosiReport

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, you got something, kinda, sorta like health care reform.

                (I always thought that O&co should have been more attentive on the economy. Pull that off, and health care reform would have walked up to you in the bar.)Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                Aaron,

                You’re looking at this wrong. It’s not the ACA which is a disaster, but our (US made!) healthcare delivery system.Report

              • Avatar notme in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Sure that’s why docs and insurance companies are fleeing Obama care.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to notme
                Ignored
                says:

                Docs, but primarily insurance companies, are the cause of the underlying problems.Report

              • Avatar notme in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Why do you blame the insurance companies for trying to survive in the conditions created by obamacare?Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to notme
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, for starters, they’re not “trying to survive”; they do alright for themselves and their shareholders.

                For seconders, the ACA was instituted, to a great extent, because of the entirely rational and in fact predictable for-profit market-based behavior of insurance companies.

                After that, things get more complicated.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Stillwater,
                You obviously aren’t in the business of healthcare.
                To put it simply: they aren’t doing alright. They’re falling apart at the seams and the profit in healthcare is recentralizing around the providers rather than the payers.

                HIGHMARK is busy trying to become a provider rather than a payer, because fo these trends.Report

              • Avatar Kolohe in reply to Kim
                Ignored
                says:

                Kim: hey’re falling apart at the seams and the profit in healthcare is recentralizing around the providers rather than the payers.

                Isn’t this a good thing in the macro sense? Isn’t economic efficiency all about minimizing middle persons in the exchange of goods and services?Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Kolohe
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not sure that’s where I’d head. I’d argue that minimizing the profitability of health care payers means that it will be easier to get single payer, which will be more efficient.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Kim
                Ignored
                says:

                You obviously aren’t in the business of healthcare.

                Ironically enough, Kim, I actually am! My wife and I are part owners of a birth center.Report

              • Avatar Aaron David in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Uhm, how does the disaster of the healthcare delivery system system negate the disaster of the ACA? Seems to me that the ACA is making the rest even worse by doubling down on much of the worst aspects, with no easy fix in the offering.

                But what do I know, the Cubs are in the series…Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                The exchanges are a disaster for two reasons (well, three): insurance companies are playing politics with em; people with chronic conditions who pre-ACA wouldn’t be gettin any insurance are now receiving it; and young, healthy people aren’t signing up and contributing to the pool (that one was pretty predictable).

                What all this shows to me – both our pre- and post-ACA healthcare – is that an insurance based model in the US of A is totally unworkable. Repeal and replace is a great idea until you get to the second part of that cute phrase: “replace”. With what? (HSAs of course!!)

                I’d suggest single payer, myself.

                Add: But to finish the thought more in line with your question, the delivery system by which healthcare is provided (Insurance companies) is in almost every respect the anti-thesis of a functioning market.Report

              • Avatar Kim in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                Stillwater,
                One more problem for you: Actuarial in nature. It’s hard to figure out how much to charge, even for catastrophic health care, for people who are just joining and have lots of problems.

                We were SUPPOSED to give the insurance companies some money so that they could have a decent buffer to get the numbers right. Republicans nixed it.Report

              • Avatar gregiank in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ve always found the argument that a pol should be knocked for trying to enact one of there biggest platform planks and multi decade desire of their party just plain weird. Not that they can’t be criticized for doing it poorly or that the result didn’t work out. But going for HCR in 09 was almost mandatory for any D. That little economic crisis thing was certainly an issue, but after winning the prez and both houses going for HCR was an easy easy choice.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to gregiank
                Ignored
                says:

                The only thing worse than craven careerist politicians seeking to cover their behinds, are brave politicians sacrificing their future to do what they promised.Report

              • Avatar Gaelen in reply to Aaron David
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s a great point. The only thing I would say in rebuttal (or maybe just as rationalization) is that both the 2010 and 2014 elections were mid-terms with low turnout and a motivated opposition. So democrats were even for governships held in the presidential election years, but lost 9 during the midterms. Another quirk to note is how many more states had gubernatorial elections in off years. With that said, Republicans did a great job at formulating and implementing a solid strategy for taking back a huge number of states.Report

          • Avatar Jesse Ewiak in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            If a Civil War didn’t happen in 1968 when there were literally hundreds of riots, it’s not happening because transgender people can use the bathroom they want, some bakers have to bake cakes they don’t want too, and the nation is getting browner.

            But, what will not help is another 4 years of dueling narratives of “Imperial Democratic Presidency flouting the Rule of Law” and “Congress Refusing to Do Anything.”Report

          • Avatar North in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            Just so I’m clear what is the definition of “Whatever might happen” in this comment? I haven’t been around a ton, work is just flattening me.Report

  7. Avatar DensityDuck
    Ignored
    says:

    “When people try to get specific with the states, they tend to get hung up on the stated odds in specific states”

    I see what you did there. Cute!Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *