Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 11, 2016 at 10:59 AM in reply to: Electoral College: the disenfranchisement of Californians #803542
livinincali
Participant[quote=givdrvr]Another interesting movement to get Electoral College Electors to abandon their state mandate and vote for Hillary Clinton.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/500-000-people-sign-petition-203109567.html%5B/quote%5D
I understand people are very upset that Trump won the election but I really despise a backdoor attempt to override the election results based on the rules that everyone knew before the election was held. Hillary’s path to the presidency was simple. Get out the Black, Hispanic and Millennial vote like Obama did, but she failed.
I don’t have a problem with people wanting to change the electoral college for future elections. I think the electoral college system is ok, but I don’t have a big problem with changing presidential elections to the popular vote. I would probably want to limit some of the things that have been done by executive order the past couple of presidencies if we made that kind of change though. I feel like the executive power is getting stronger and if it continues to grow I don’t know that I can be comfortable with checks and balances in congress to give adequate representation.
November 10, 2016 at 10:48 AM in reply to: Electoral College: the disenfranchisement of Californians #803430Participant[quote=moneymaker]
Yeah I’d say it had an influence on this last election. I’m not gonna say the system is rigged as everyone knew the rules and Trump won because he ran a better campaign based on those rules. But technically the electoral college system takes us farther away from being a true Democracy. As spdrun said it made perfect sense back then but not now.[/quote]We never were a true democracy. The US form of government is a constitutional republic. True democracy is actually a pretty poor government as it allows the majority to oppress the minority. A constitutional republic places a bunch of checks and balances to restrict the majority from doing exactly that.
In 2008 the majority in CA did vote to ban Gay Marriage. In true democracy that vote would still stand and we’d continue to oppress the rights of the gay minority. In took courts and interpretation of the constitution to override that majority rule.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
I’m done caring about ’em deplorables. They got who they wanted. If their lives don’t get better, they have nobody but themselves to blame.Garrison Keillor wrote a good article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-voters-will-not-like-what-happens-next/2016/11/09/e346ffc2-a67f-11e6-8fc0-7be8f848c492_story.html%5B/quote%5DThings probably aren’t going to get better for them under Trump but they weren’t going to get better under Hillary either. This was another Hope and Change election. If people wanted the status quo Hillary would have won in a landslide.
I think this article sort of demonstrates why Hillary Clinton lost. Middle class america that is struggling has a real problem with elitists. I think people are just pushing back against that elitist tone even if some of those policies proposed by the elitists would benefit them.
Just look at how badly most of our predictions were in this thread. We don’t live in swing states and we don’t communicate with the middle class blue collar voter. We honestly just don’t understand how these people think or what concerns they have. If you want to pursue a liberal progressive policy you need to do it without the elitist vibe. If not I think you’ll continue to see the push back we saw last night.
ParticipantNot exactly sure what you are looking for but check out finviz.com
ParticipantI don’t think Trump does anything to Hillary she’s the biggest failure we’ve ever seen in politics. If you can’t win with #NeverTrump you are never going to win. It does look like Trump path to victory was the only one I could think of. Low voter turnout. He actually lost the popular vote but the numbers are incredibly low. Roughly 59 million to 59 million. For reference Obama won 2008 69 million to 59 million. We are a bigger country now so it’s like 12 to 15 million people that showed up in the Obama election didn’t bother showing up to this election.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
I am willing to bet that Hillary will win by a wider margin than Obama won in 2012. More electoral votes.If i lose, I give my word of honor I will donate $500 to next republican nominee. Are you willing to donate to the Democratic nominee in 2020?[/quote]
Here’s the electoral map of 2012. Which states do you see flipping to the democratic nominee.
I won’t make the bet though because I think Hillary probably will win and I’ll never give my money to that criminal enterprise.
Participant[quote=millennial][quote=CA renter]Yep. I’ve been telling people that if Bernie didn’t make it past Clinton’s firewall, Trump would win in November.[/quote]
I really can’t see how Trump can win when his appeal is to such a small minority of people. Yes you are correct that he creates very strong reactions one way or the other, but his chances to win are slim to none. The only scenario I could see him winning is if it was a tight race between 3 or more candidates. I think he has a strong appeal to 25%-35% of the population (predominately white, male, lower-middle class) who will make it in droves to the voting booths. However the rest of America loathes him.[/quote]
Trump’s appeal isn’t the right way of looking at this election. Hillary’s appeal is rather low as well. This election comes down to how the people that don’t really like either candidate vote or don’t vote for them. I think Hillary will probably win. She’ll possibly win big if voter turnout is good, but I don’t think voter turnout is going to be very good. Trump’s path to victory is low voter turnout. Are the disenfranchised Black and Hispanic voter who tend to vote at polling places going to show up and possibly wait in line to vote for Hillary. They did enthusiastically for Obama but I don’t really see it for Hillary.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]This is what Nate Silver says:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
For senate, looks like a win for dem.
Russ Feingold, WI
Evan Bayh, IN. Nice to see good democrats make a comeback
Tammy Duckwoth, IL. I like her, she’s from HI like Obama.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/%5B/quote%5DWhile Nate Silver might have a decent track record in the past he was horribly wrong about Trump in the Republican primaries. I do think Hillary is going to win and the democrats will do pretty well. Voter turnout is probably going to be low for this election. No one seems to be very enthusiastic about this election. Hillary probably wins the popular vote like 63-64 million to 59-60 for Trump. That will be lower than Obama’s 2008 (69 to 60) or 2012 (66 to 61) victories. I don’t want to predict electoral because it involves too much research, let Nate Silver figure that out. He’ll probably be close but it will be closer than his prediction.
Participant[quote=poorgradstudent]
I agree the growler fill policy is frustrating to find info on, as the majority really want you to buy their growlers.[/quote]Actually the growler policy was by law until recently. You couldn’t fill a growler that didn’t bear you company’s logo. Now you can fill growlers that are blank or have the logo covered up if it isn’t your logo.
As for good breweries, it sort of depends on the style of beer you’re looking for. I like Coronado for being good at a variety of styles. Ballast and Pizza Port are pretty good in terms of being well rounded as well. I’m not a fan of Stone’s core brews but their specialty and smaller batch stuff has been quite good.
ParticipantYou have to go through EU and US regulators. I saw the CNBC interview with the CEOs and seemed like 2018 was best case for approval. So while the 20% return looks kinda juicy its probably 18-24 months away from happening if it does. There’s probably not a lot of downside risk in the short term though.
Participant[quote=spdrun]You’re not asking the market price — if you were, you’d be getting more viables per week. You’re asking what others WISH they might be able to rent for. Suck it up and drop your price, or write a better ad that gets people’s attention.[/quote]
That’s sort of the problem with higher priced rentals. Your tenant pool just isn’t that deep. There just aren’t a lot of families that want to spend $3K plus in rent on a family home in the suburbs. They’ll buy something instead.
Participant[quote=flu]
I wouldn’t worry about it, you’re not going to miss *that* much money from waiting extra year. Who knows, maybe you won’t lose money during that 1 year, in case the stock market tanks. So you never know, maybe there’s reason for this after all 🙂
[/quote]The only thing your really missing out on is the tax benefit. You can open a standard brokerage account and likely invest in the same shitty funds the 401K offers. The question of paying down a mortgage versus investing really just comes down to rate of return and any kind of possible tax advantage/disadvantage. If you pretty confident you can get a rate of return a couple percent higher than the mortgage rate do that. If you can’t then pay down the mortgage.
ParticipantHere’s the rent information I have for San Diego city. Seems like it was really flat for a few years after the bubble and the really started to take off in 2012. It mirrors what happened in the housing market. Vacancy has come back down after rising last year it’s around 3% compared to last years 4%. It wouldn’t surprise me to continue to see 4-5% a year going forward at least until the next recession hits.
Year Average Rent YoY Change
2016 $1,649 4.1%
2015 $1,584 9.4%
2014 $1,448 5.8%
2013 $1,369 5.3%
2012 $1,300 4.4%
2011 $1,245 1.8%
2010 $1,223 1.2%
2009 $1,209 -1.8%
2008 $1,231 2.2%
2007 $1,204 3.5%
2006 $1,163Participant[quote=zk]Hypothetical scenario: Late October, and it becomes apparent that Trump is going to lose. Do many republican politicians who are still endorsing Trump at that time suddenly jump ship, hoping to save their careers? Calculating that it will sooner or later become the consensus of the vast majority of Americans that Trump truly was a lying, racist, misogynist, fascist, thin-skinned, vengeful, war-loving (his own words) ignoramus who would’ve been an extremely dangerous president, and not wanting to be seen as having blindly supported him?
That would be interesting to watch.[/quote]
I don’t think your going to see that many people walk back from that endorsement. There just aren’t a lot of competitive races for house or senate. I guess we can watch Darrell Issa. He endorsed Trump and is in a competitive race for his seat in the house. I think in a competitive race my best guess is candidates are going to try to walk away from Trump and Clinton if they can. They definitely don’t want that to be the focus of their campaign.
At this point I still believe Neither or Anybody Else would win in a landslide vs Trump or Clinton. This is seriously the election of I’m voting so the other person won’t win. I guess I can vote for the libertarian candidate Gary Johnson again.
-
AuthorPosts
