The more you look for it the more you recognize that a lot of the people in charge of politics (and business for that matter) aren't smart or knowledgeable or even master strategists, they're just the sort of person who skirt through life through some combination of charisma and utter willingness to say whatever it takes to please the people who can advance their career.
Like you expect the dumb shit they say to be an act by a keen mind who understands politics deeply and is manipulating the public into advancing their interests, but they're often just fucking idiots with no principles who whenever they've been stymied due to their idiocy just let it slide off their back and move on to a new path with utmost confidence.
Jill Stein isn't going to slink away into the darkness after a public demonstration of political ignorance for a lady whose whole public persona is supposed to be about politics, she's just going to forget about it and keep the scam going. Not knowing the basics of government isn't going to stop her from saying she knows how to fix the problems with government. Not being on the ballot in states is unimportant for whether it sounds good to her in the moment to say they can win in all 50 states. They're all just unimportant "facts" and you can just keep talking and most people will forget or not know that you're an idiot.
It's a fine sample size. That's a normal national poll. A poll of 1,000 people has a margin of error (from random sampling) of 3%. There are other errors than random chance that could bias a poll, but random chance is what sampling size is generally managing.
Use those other sites. Third Way is a large contributor to why the Democrats are continually threatened by third parties. Their whole idea is that Democrats can and should go as hard toward the right as possible because the left flank of the party is (a) bad for their financial backers and (b) has to vote Democratic. You can't promote that position and then act like a shocked Pikachu when your own philosophy ends up creating the problem you now want to warn against.
Plus all those godforsaken inaccurate pie charts other people pointed out.
And outside the cult, it's a bet that Truth Social would become a vector for bribing the president of the United States. If people are going to bribe Trump by pumping his share price, you can get a cut.
You literally just got moderated for this. Just read the f'in rules.
What's uncivil about insulting the product of a politician? Kamala Harris isn't here.
Social media isn't a search engine. If an article is referring to someone by name in the title, they almost certainly have a Wikipedia page the questioner could read rather than requesting random strangers on a message board provide answers for them (in the form of multiple answers of varying bias and accuracy).
Wanting to learn isn't the problem, it's not spending the tiniest bit of personal effort before requesting service from other people.
There's no reason to take this guy or his organization at face value when they make claims. It's been hype and hopium for a decade now, fueled by TED Talks and wunderkind-loving media.
Cleaning up the garbage patch isn't just a matter of collecting nicely floating big pieces of plastic. Doing that is good, but it's not actually something that can ever get it to "clean", it's just something that helps slow the accumulation over time. You get the big stuff (relatively) easily, then it gets progressively harder, and eventually impossible.
Which is progress. It's just not the lofty result they keep promising. If all it took was a big net and a relatively modest (by government standards) budget, this wouldn't be a problem.
Who is Nate Silver? Really?
It's literally the question, unlike vague concepts of "supporting Israel militarily" until an ideology is disbanded (hello War on Terror).
Proposals for a cease fire include releasing all the hostages. And for those that want to somehow accomplish the impossible task of dismantling an ideology, only half support it. Less than half to be precise. And those are mostly Republicans.
Nearly seven in 10 Republicans (67%) favor supporting Israel until Hamas is dismantled, compared to only four in 10 Independents (44%) and Democrats (41%).
Another way to say this is "a majority of Democrats and independents do not favor supporting Israel militarily until Hamas is dismantled". Yeah, great factoid. One might even call it misleading to use it to indicate Democrats don't support restricting arms.
If the question is "do you support Israel", yeah, but that's not the question.
At the same time, a bare majority of Americans (53%) agree on restricting military aid to Israel so it cannot use the aid toward military operations against Palestinians, similar to previous readings. Seven in 10 Democrats (68%) and more than half of Independents (54%) support restricting military aid to Israel, while the majority of Republicans (59%) oppose doing so.
Combined, nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) also say the United States should pressure Israel to accept a ceasefire, either with diplomacy (27%) or by reducing arms shipments (37%). However, three in 10 (29%) say the United States should continue arm shipments to Israel and not pressure it to accept a ceasefire at all. While the majority of Republicans say the United States should continue its arms shipments to Israel and not put any pressure on it (53%), nearly half of Democrats (47%) and a plurality of Independents (42%) say the United States should pressure Israel to accept a ceasefire by reducing its weapons transfers.
Lichtman argues he was right in 2000 because his system predicted the popular vote winner, but that means in 2016 he was wrong because Trump didn't win the popular vote. He then tried to say the keys are now about predicting the electoral college winner, but there wasn't any change in the keys. He's just trying to redefine his targets to say he was right after the fact.
Also, his keys aren't supposed to need frequent reevaluation based on fine-grade events, so if they predict she'd win now, they should have predicted she'd win last month. The only information that's been revealed is there wasn't a "primary" challenge for the eventual nominee.
And that's on coin flips. Many of the last 10 elections weren't hard to predict.
Child soldiers are an essential bulwark against government tyranny!
The kid was taken alive, so it's likely he'll just tell them at some point.
Of all the things to proactively announce you're different from Biden on, this was the issue she chose? Not saying anything and letting people assume what they'd like has been doing a lot of good work for the campaign, but there are definitely some issues she needs to break on. This wasn't one of them. Be optimistic while campaigning and let it be killed in the senate like we all know it will.
In an economic speech in New Hampshire on Wednesday, Vice President Kamala Harris plans to propose a smaller increase in taxes on capital gains, breaking with the policy laid out by President Joe Biden in his 2025 budget, according to people familiar with the matter.
Vice President Kamala Harris proposed increasing the long-term capital gains tax rate to 28% for wealthy Americans during an economic speech in New Hampshire on Wednesday, breaking with the policy laid out by President Joe Biden in his 2025 budget by suggesting a lower rate.
The current long-term capital gains tax rate – 20%, plus an additional 3.8% tax on higher earners – is paid when an investment is sold, or gains are realized. The Biden budget proposes raising that rate to the top rate he wants to levy on ordinary income – 39.6% – for households with taxable income over $1 million. Harris, the people familiar with the matter say, believes 39.6% is too high.
While Harris still supports taxing the wealthiest individuals and corporations at higher rates – as Biden’s budget also calls for – she believes that a lower capital gains rate would incentivize investors to put more money into startups and small businesses. She has also proposed increasing the corporate tax rate to 28%, up from the current 21% rate set by Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.
I see Mr. Maduro and America's retail corporations have at least one goal in common.
New York doesn’t have a supermajority.
It literally has a supermajority right now. 42-21 in the upper house and 102-48 in the lower house.
“As the Equal Rights campaign has made clear, in order for Prop 1 to be successful it must remain nonpartisan. Democratic leaders and the state party are fully in support of the NY ERA and will continue to follow the strategic guidance of the campaign to ensure its success,” said the Democratic official, who was granted anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions.
Maybe in Kansas, but this is New York where the Democrats have a supermajority. If they think the campaign being associated with the Democratic party will risk its passage, that's an indictment on them, not some truism of politics. You don't need conservatives and independents to win votes in New York.
On the other hand, the NY Democratic Party has been spectacularly bad at winning what should be a very easy state with party leadership more worried about keeping the left in check than actually promoting Democratic values.
Progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) announced Wednesday that there are currently enough votes in the Senate to suspend the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade and abortion rights if Democrats win control of the House and keep the Senate and White House.
“We will suspend the filibuster. We have the votes for that on Roe v. Wade,” Warren said on ABC’s “The View.”
She said if Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2025, “the first vote Democrats will take in the Senate, the first substantive vote, will be to make Roe v. Wade law of the land again in America.”
A budget by the Republican Study Committee, a group of more than 170 GOP lawmakers, highlights how many in the party would seek to govern if Republicans win in November.
A new budget by a large and influential group of House Republicans calls for raising the Social Security retirement age for future retirees and restructuring Medicare.
For Social Security, the budget endorses "modest adjustments to the retirement age for future retirees to account for increases in life expectancy." It calls for lowering benefits for the highest-earning beneficiaries. And it emphasizes that those ideas are not designed to take effect immediately: "The RSC Budget does not cut or delay retirement benefits for any senior in or near retirement."
Biden has blasted Republican proposals for the retirement programs, promising that he will not cut benefits and instead proposing in his recent White House budget to cover the future shortfall by raising taxes on upper earners.
"Despite my deep political differences with brother Harlan Crow (who is an anti-Trump Republican), I've known him in a nonpolitical setting for some years and I pray for his precious family," said the presidential candidate.
Harlan Crow (of the Clarence Thomas patronage scandals) donated the max individual donation ($3,300) to Cornel West's campaign, which invited obvious criticism.
Text of his response on Twitter: >As an independent candidate and a free Black man, I accept donations within the limits of no PACs or corporate interest groups that have strings attached. I am unbought and unbossed. Despite my deep political differences with brother Harlan Crow (who is an anti-Trump Republican), I’ve known him in a non-political setting for some years and I pray for his precious family. I find it hypocritical for those who highlight his $3300 donation to my campaign but can’t say a mumbling word about the PAC-driven billion dollars to support the genocidal attack in Gaza sponsored by their candidate! I’m fighting for Truth, Justice, and Love! Onward!
Frankly, the pleasant words make this look much worse than just saying "if some asshole wants to send me money, I'll keep it". Sounds like someone he wants to keep on the good side of, but y'know they're only political differences, not stuff that really matters.