Yeah, well, as an Eagles fan I'm not keen on those odds.

The real interesting thing to me is if the polls are significantly off and if so in which direction. I can buy a scenario where desirability bias means it favors Trump and a situation where the fact that Clinton voters don't have landlines and traditional ways to reach them means it goes the other way

I think we are going to end where the 538 polling starts, 70/30. I seem to remember the 2012 also ended basically where it started

UPDATE: The Nevada Early Voting Blog - Story

John Ralston in Nevada breaks down the early vote totals. The Dems are building up as almost as big of a firewall as they did in 2012. I don't think it's a toss up anymore. They're building up a big lead in Clark County and a slight edge in Washoe.

I don't think they'll be off that much. In 2012 Romney was convinced he was winning. In 2008 the polls were off because people were telling pollsters they'd vote for a black man but when they got into the voting booths they wouldn't. There's always some reason the polls are wrong.

Log In - New York Times

Obama started at 63% and was at 90% by election day. He was at 74.6% at this same period in the election.

The polls actually were off in 2012, just in the wrong direction for Romney. The final RCP average had Obama up by 0.7 and he won by 3.9.

This is the key thing and, in my humble opinion, you are missing the point here. To what larry said, it's very possible that Clinton outperforms the polling, but that's a different question.

Two things here.

1. Battleground states aren't static, Which states actually count as battleground states change(for example, North Carolina isn't as close as it was earlier in the campaign).

2. Directly to your point here, there are a lot of people who live in larger states and those aren't going to flip. It's not that it matters how much you win by; it's the fact that it doesn't take much change to swing the battlegrounds -- that's why they are battlegrounds. For example, a swing of let's say 3 points from Clinton to Trump. Well, as you point out, it makes no difference that she wins California by 21 instead of 24, or 18 instead of 21 in New York. It also won't help him to win by 13 instead of 10 in Indiana.

Here's what does matter though. Right now Florida and Ohio are the closest races, aka biggest battlegrounds. That swing has trump winning by 4 in Ohio, so there and anywhere redder are now pretty safe. States do tend to follow the national trend, with fairly rare exceptions. Florida he has by 2.5, so Clinton has a chance there but not much of one. Not quite a battleground anymore. Next up you've got North Carolina and Nevada, which go from leaning Clinton to leaning Trump(1.6 and 1.7 respectively). Those would be battleground states now but in the other direction where they are previously. Even if he wins both he still doesn't get to 270 ... but then you've got Colorado and Pennsylvania. Colorado is now down to only 1.6 on Clinton's side, so that's a battleground where it was safe before at 4.6, and Penn is down to 2.0. An upset either place gets Trump to 270. A larger swing means he's got an even easier path, a smaller one makes Hillary more comfortable, and so on. .

The main point I'm trying to communicate with all this is that a swing like this makes battleground states out of those like Colorado and Pennsylvania that weren't before, and takes a state like Ohio and basically puts it out of play on the other side. And of course the pendulum can, and has during this campaign, swing the other way.

We have used similar sites in the past. I will wait until we get home later to see how we do this one together.

To put it in its most basic form, she looks at US government much more as a coalition government than she has in the past.

That's certainly dedication. I like early voting generally, but have to say I hate how much of it is reported on. This guy, who seems to be an expert on Nevada voting, has basically already figured out who is going to win the presidential and the statewide elections, a week before the election. Doesn't seem fair to either side to have that reported on publicly. Early vote sure, but have the votes held (and reported on) until election day when every body else has voted.

What are you citing here? Single polls? You speak really definitively when there is not much definitive out there.

Jill Stein is not a fan of John Oliver:

Jill Stein Wants National Conversation On Oppressive Comedians

poor Jill Stein. She should be grateful that anyone is covering her campaign at all.

Maybe she can win some of Ben Stein's money.

Yeah it sucks that 3rd and 4th and 5th options are trying to present themselves. Trump is really coming up with all sorts of innovative and forward thinking ideas.

But where would she spend it then? :)

Reading some of the demo splits in the ABC/WaPo poll stuff, I'm still right where I've been for weeks: outcome (or at least the popular vote portion) will be decided by turnout in key demographics.

I was checking the website of a Catholic church near my house to see what time their mass was tonight. In listing their mass times, they also list the "mass intention." Normally the person listed is someone who's sick, dead, or just the general population.

The mass for Friday is for Donald J. Trump.

I think its safe to assume I can intuit this parish's political leanings.

Also, my priest had an op-ed in the Greenville Journal pretty much decrying both candidates as unfit to hold office.

I see you can watch the election results come in Tuesday at some AMC movie theaters. Seems dangerous.

The KKK officially endorses Donald Trump for Presidenthttps://t.co/mI1nKU5uzo#Election2016#UniteBlue#MAGA#ImWithHer

— TheNewDeal (@TheNewDeal) November 1, 2016

It's funny just how wide the gulf is within the Catholic Church. I remember going to a Theology on Tap for the local Catholic Church because my friend was going to be giving the presentation and two folks there got into a verbal fight on Obamacare - one being adamantly against and the other being adamantly for, both trying to use Catholic teaching to justify their views... and they both were faithful members of the same congregation.

It's more contraception than abortion. ACA mandates coverage for contraceptives.

Part of it was contraception mandates, but it was mostly due to the person's focus on the Catholic Church's principle of subsidiarity (ie, health care should be dealt with on a more local level). In this case, I think it was the person's conservative political leanings guiding here as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (not exactly a bunch of liberals) are in favor of a federal health care system.

Though, FWIW, I don't think being against it due to paying for abortion is necessarily that bad of a position. Most Catholics (well those who aren't just Republicans masquerading as Catholic - Catholic in Name Only? ;) ) tend to be of the sort that is for more spending for mothers and their children after child birth and more spending for adoption clinics.

Coverage for is not a requirement for use. Catholics covered under ACA needn't use condoms or the Pill.

But not everybody in the country is Catholic. Not everybody in the country is even Christian.

Trying to mandate that the law be shaped explicitly according to Christian/Catholic doctrine with no thought given to the ~20-30% of the country who are either atheist or non-Christian kind of misses the point of "render unto Caesar..."

I was just explaining the issue the Catholic church has with the law. I'm 100% in favor of the contraception mandate. Making contraception accessible and affordable is just plain common sense, and there's no reason why a fiscal conservative should ever be against that.

I think you misread the 'render unto Caesar' verse when it comes to Catholic understandings of Church/State relations ;). It's a very Protestant viewpoint of you :D.

Anyways, the objection is with Catholic organizations, like hospitals or non-profits, having to pay for the contraception of its employees. That's why some alternatives have arisen, such as having the government require the insurance company provide it if the organization objects to paying for them, etc.

Well, I AM Protestant. Ish. Raised Baptist. Still consider myself Christian, although I hold a different viewpoint on a number of issues than the Protestant-affiliated churches hereabouts. :D

I always read "render unto Caesar" as "don't try to use the Law to weasel out of things you don't like about government. You buttheads demanded a King, and government doing things you sometimes don't like goes right along with that. Worry about making sure you're doing the things God asks of you personally."

But, eh. That's me.

The objection with Catholic organizations extends beyond not wanting to pay for contraception coverage. Some organizations have gone so far as to argue in court that signing a waiver request form makes them complicit in sin by letting someone else (the government) sin on their behalf. It isn't even about paying for the coverage or not paying for the coverage. It's about letting their female employees have access to the coverage at all.

I've always read it as one of Jesus's really clever responses to those that were trying to trick him. Give Caesar his money, but everything else is God's. After all, what doesn't belong to God?


I think they actually have a good argument on that point. Why did the government make it so they have to sign a waiver request (which says it'll be provided on their behalf) instead of saying if we don't receive an opt-in by... say 60 days, the government will just provide it.

Good question. I'm citing fivethirtyeight.com's projection. You are totally correct that it isn't definitive, but I think it's the best there is. Even if multiple of the states that I mentioned end up significantly off from what Silver & co. think(unlikely based on their track record, but definitely possible) I think the basic principle is still valid.

Clinton is down to -275 at Bovada. Is it really that close? I had put a considerable amount of money earlier at -350.

Which model? Polls plus? They are all very dynamic.

I've never understood this line of argument. It's not that there's no thought given to those people -- they have the same voice as the Christian/Catholic do, can advocate for what they believe, vote for candidates who support what they believe, etc. The implication here seems to be that whatever someone believes, they should vote differently than that if they are part of a majoritarian block?



I think you are both right to a degree, esp. Isiddiqui. The thing about the first quote here is that submitting to governmental authority is a definite must(Romans 13, Peter's instructions regarding, of all kings to choose, Nero, etc.). It isn't an absolute one though, for ex. the apostles in Acts showing great respect to the Sanhedrin but declaring that 'we ought to obey God rather than men.' I.e., if the two come into conflict, respectful, submissive civil disobedience, with the expectation of humbly paying the lawful price for that behavior, is appropriate.

The nuance of this is often lost on many in modern times, but I'm enough of a proponent of the importance of submitting to the proper authorities that I think the Revolutionary War in America for example is not defensible. Obey God, honor the King.

.02.

I was using the state details under polls plus. However, at this stage I don't think there's much difference between them; the closer it gets to the election, the narrower the difference between them as the degree of certainty in the model rises.

Depends on what you go by. RCP has Clinton down to a 2.2 lead. Nate Silver has her with a 4 pt lead. Her electoral college map still looks good, but if the state polls start to follow the national polls, then there could be trouble.

I am extremely nervous with 7 days to go.

Of course. On election day, they should theoretically be the same, but there are pretty significant differences between the three models, particularly in Florida right now. And they've changed since this morning. :)

Sounds like Rawls to me.

Very true, digamma. The exact numbers I used were probably not valid, to the extent they were in the first place, for more than about 90 minutes.

Especially with the FBI seemingly an arm of the Trump campaign.

But he had such impeccable references! Democrats Used to Really Love FBI Director James Comey (Obviously there's the same supercut in reverse begging to be made as well.)

Maybe it's my personal dislike of Hillary clouding my opinion, but I can't understand why her campaign has constantly tried to deflect it onto Russia and now Comey instead of just owning the emails, saying effectively "yeah, there's some embarrassing stuff in there - but nothing illegal, and more importantly let's look at how much worse my opponent is in almost everything a President is actually asked to do." That's the position it seems every intellectually honest HRC supporter has taken, and I would've taken if I lived in a swing state (still a MA voter, so I wrote in McMullin). They go low, we go high is a great soundbite, but that means you can't reflexively resort to character assassination as soon as a public servant you praised even a week ago does something you disagree with. That contributes to the erosion of trust in the government and helps turn politics into a base partisan sport that's put us in this place where people prefer their echo chambers instead of trying to find some common ground.How dare comedians actually show clips of the candidate agreeing with anti-Vaxxers, 9/11 truthers, or evidencing a complete lack of understanding of how the federal reserve works! :)

(OK, bringing up her terrible folk rock music was mean.)

538 has dropped Clinton's poll-plus chances from a high of 85.3% just two weeks ago to 69.4% today. It doesn't look like there's any specific state she's plunged more than others to change that, though they have Nevada much closer than the stories about early voting there would indicate.

I could be wrong but I don't think they are factoring in the early voting thing -- I think they are going based on what the polls(and other fundamentals like the economy, incumbents, etc. for the polls-plus) say.

They aren't factoring it in, but they do have an article talking about the Nevada numbers:

The Early Vote In Nevada Suggests Clinton Might Beat Her Polls There | FiveThirtyEight

Sure. It was definitely a "get that weak shit outta here" response. But there's still the "God has set those above you in power for a reason" component that was a strong part of Christian theology through most of the middle ages, if not beyond. The 'render unto Caesar' line referred specifically to taxes, but the larger implication is 'your forebears asked for a King and God assented; nothing happens that He does not will, and attempting passive defiance of your lawful government in His name is still defiance against God, who is in control of all things.'


They're still choosing not to act, fully cognizant of the consequences - that the government will commit a 'sin' with which their lack of response has been complicit.

It's not about who pays. It's about denying women affiliated with the Church or religious non-profits access to contraceptives entirely. That's the only way the 'sin' in question is averted - is if they're allowed a carveout from the law that exempts them entirely from having to provide a plan that offers coverage they see as complicit with sinful behavior.

And per the Fourteenth Amendment, if you open that door for religious groups, you have to open it for private businesses whose owners claim "deeply held religious beliefs."

At which point you have well and truly undermined whatever protections you were codifying into law in the first place.

[quote=Brian Swartz;3126485]I've never understood this line of argument. It's not that there's no thought given to those people -- they have the same voice as the Christian/Catholic do, can advocate for what they believe, vote for candidates who support what they believe, etc. The implication here seems to be that whatever someone believes, they should vote differently than that if they are part of a majoritarian block?

The difference is between "support what they believe" and "works to codify those religious beliefs into law." Look at state-level politicians all over the country, and you'll see people who get elected because they're explicitly Christian and promote pro-Christian policies (and sometimes anti-other groups) and that isn't Constitutionally permissible.

Despite what the most intensely religious among us spout with regularity, we are not "a Christian nation." That has never been part of our charter. We are a nation whose citizens are predominantly one flavor of Christian or another, but freedom from religious interference by the State covers ALL faiths - not just "Catholic, or Protestant? And if Protestant, which Reformation?"

And the response that "so what? if 70% of the country wants Christian Sharia that should be allowed" ignores that the Founders were explicitly mistrustful of majoritarian rule. We've undermined a number of the protections they originally set up against the "tyranny of the majority," and the removal of still others one side or the other clamors for with regularity.

Our institutions were established to prevent that very idea. Not just religiously, to be sure, but the religious history of Europe (and particularly England) kept that concern at the forefront of their thoughts. "No law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is in the First Amendment for a reason.

Christians/Catholics can advocate for the things they believe, but there has to be a sound secular justification as well. "My God says so" isn't a Constitutionally acceptable answer when looking to restrict people from doing some things, or looking to compel them to do others.


To an extent, I'm down with that. But I can think of certain cases where that's not acceptable. As a government employee, for example. The proper response if the government implements a policy change at odds with one's faith is not to deny services to the public because of that conflict. Resign, find another job more compatible with your faith, and let the government get on with it.

Surprised it took until the final week, but the c-word was finally used by an elected official on Twitter.

Tweet from Texas agriculture chief's account calls Clinton the c-word | The Texas Tribune

I thought the contraception mandate was waived for religious organizations. In other words, they have to have it as part of their plan, but they don't need to actually pay for it...

On this, I couldn't honestly respectfully disagree more. That's not what the First Amendment meant when it was written. 'Establishment of religion' meant 'Establish a state church, vis a vis the Anglican Church in England'. It was a protection of religious liberty. It also only limits Congress, i.e. 'Congress shall make no law'. In other words, it has nothing whatsoever to say about SCOTUS, the executive branch, or any state or local governmental body whatsoever.


This I completely agree with. I'm in favor of, among other things, reinstituting the 17th Amendment, undoing the completely unconstitutional federalization of the Bill of Rights(incorporation), etc. I'm not at all ignoring constitutional protections here; I'm saying an inherent anti-religion bias, which is implicit in this:


is not pluralism or freedom of religion. It establishes secularism as the official belief system of the nation, inherently superior and predominant over religious beliefs.

Good discussion, even though I'm pretty sure we're going to disagree here.


I think we're in agreement on this point.

This really got to me today for some reason. I think about Quik's post and his daughters, and really all of you with daughters. And my sons and if I can impart on them that it is never ok to call anyone that word and they never do, then that's worth something. It really should be that we are great because we are good.

Yes. The coverage has to be there, but religious organizations can sign a waiver opting out of paying for it. The further gobble-gabble over the mandate since has been "if we sign a waiver we're still complicit in the sin because we're mandating that somebody else take responsibility for it."

It isn't about paying for it. It never was. It's about denying the coverage to their female employees entirely.


Except that SCOTUS has ruled any number of times regarding improper exercises of state power (as opposed to State power) to favor or disfavor a particular religion. They've done so with regard to things like prayer in classrooms, state funding for secular versus religious schools, the use of public property (such as public schools after school has been dismissed for the day) by secular and faith-based groups, and so forth.

Sometimes the religious arguments have carried the day and sometimes the secular arguments have held sway, but the common factor is that nowhere has the Court ruled that the First Amendment applies exclusively to the Federal Government.

Even as far back as 1961, SCOTUS held that the "religious test" clause that Article VI, Clause 3 doesn't apply exclusively to Federal employees, but to all government employees. Which, granted, isn't explicitly a First Amendment ruling, but it falls in line with the general sense that Constitutional religious protections - in both directions - are not patchwork. Kansas isn't free to discriminate in a way that the Federal Government cannot, say.


Except that's literally what the Supreme Court ruled in Lemon vs. Kurtzman: that any state (or State) action which might affect a particular religion either positively or negatively must have a secular legislative purpose. That doesn't mean that Secularism is the official state religion. It means that, by definition, any non-secular basis for legislation must inherently be either to the benefit of one sect or to the detriment of another. In order to pass muster with both the First and Fourteenth Amendments, that can't be permitted.

Note that SCOTUS has ruled several times in favor of religious speech/outcomes, as well. This knife cuts both ways. Neither state nor Federal governments may privilege a particular faith via legislative means, but by the same token, neither may state or Federal governments specifically seek to hamper a particular faith. That is, by definition, how secular government works. Let the people concern themselves with matters of Heaven; the government will concern itself with matters of this Earth.

Bill Weld "vouches" for Clinton on MSNBC tonight.

True, but that's kind of like saying the court has ruled that 2+2=5. The language is what it is. I can't imagine a construction under which 'Congress shall make no law' can be reasonably construed to apply to all of government, since all of government doesn't, ya know, make laws.

I was under the impression, perhaps incorrectly, that we were discussing the Constitution rather than what SCOTUS has ruled about it, because of stuff like this:


The other point worth continuing I think is this:


Your second and third sentences here are in fundamental conflict. Any basis whatsoever for any legislation you can imagine is 'to the benefit of one sect or to the detriment of another'. Increasing taxes is to the detriment of those who think they should be lower, as a basic example. When one sets up secular basis as being more valid than a religious one, that simply is by basic logic and definition of terms an anti-religious point of view.




You're right on what you are describing regarding how SCOTUS has ruled, but

So, it seems like you're choosing to ignore the 14th amendment which is what incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states.

You can't divorce the two. The Constitution also gives SCOTUS original jurisdiction on Constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is, per the Constitution, the final arbiter of what the Constitution says (barring the invocation of the amendment process, and even there, SCOTUS is still responsible for interpreting the new Amendment in such a way that it doesn't fundamentally break the rest of the Constitution).




Goalpost-moving detected. You're seriously invoking changes in tax law as being comparable to the promotion of religion?

Read what I said again: if the basis for legislation is non-secular, then by definition it involves the elevation of a particular faith or creed over others, and the Supreme Court has ruled that that's a no-no, both at the Federal and at the state levels.

One faith or another might benefit from a given piece of legislation, but if that legislation is grounded in a secular basis, incidental benefit does not rise to the level of unconstitutional promotion or suppression of a given faith. THAT'S the point of secular government. Perfectly neutral governance may not be possible, but as long as the benefit accrues incidentally and not as the result of government overtly attempting to assist the religion in question, SCOTUS is generally going to leave it alone.




I suspect you probably hit enter before you meant to here. I'll be curious to see what you have to say.

Exactly. The equal protection clause is probably the most popularly-known clause, but No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States pretty clearly says that the protections United States citizens enjoy with regard to the federal government can't be abrogated by the several states.

Which means that, no, the First Amendment does not apply exclusively to the Federal government.

Poll-plus is the one that takes factors such as likely voters vs respondents, among other things, into account, right?

If so, isn't one of the things factored in likely turnout by demographic? And isn't there a storyline in the past few days where HRC is suddenly slumping with black voters(Trump isn't gaining from it, just that she's losing like 9-10 points of likely voters or something to that effect)? Couldn't that account for a lot of the shift?

polls-plus includes stuff that isn't necessarily part of the polls themselves, such as economic indicators. "When so-and-so leads by such-and-such with economic conditions roughly akin to the current environment, they win X% of the time" kind of thing.

Once again, this depends on your denomination. The "God has set those above in power for a reason" is generally a part of theology in the Middle Ages, but it was always with the caveat, that if the powerful run afoul of the Church, their mandate is revoked (think of the Road to Canossa where HRE Henry IV marched on his knees before the Pope to undo his excommunication). This is, btw, one of the reason that German princes embraced Protestantism so heartedly - Luther indicated that King and Church were on similar levels and that the King is also head of the Church in his own lands (something Henry VIII kind of liked as well).


That's not their argument. In fact that Supreme Court remanded (and asked the parties to work out an agreement) based on the Little Sisters of the Poor saying that they wouldn't feel their rights are violated if they can sign up for a plan that doesn't include paying for contraception and the government pays for it instead.


If they don't have to provide a plan that offers coverage, but the government provides it instead, they would be completely fine with that. They object to the filing of a form (EBSA Form 700) that authorizes the insurance company to pay for contraception. And they shouldn't have to do so. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, no conservative, offered the Little Sisters of the Poor a temporary injunction until the case is resolved allowing them to simply inform the Secretary of Health and Human Services of their objections - and they were fine with that.

So what's wrong with making that the procedure to opt-out?

And to be fair, the members of Little Sisters of the Poor probably shouldn't be getting contraception anyways.... they are nuns ;).


I don't see why. Little Sisters of the Poor and others filing suit are actually religious organizations. I'm not entirely sure why they weren't given the same protections as churches. Religious organizations already have protections that don't flow to private businesses (namely in hiring).

The 14th Amendment came around in the 1860s. Brian Schwartz was talking about the meaning of the 1st Amendment when it was written (in a discussion about politicians who are promoting pro-Christian policies - and, btw, depending on the policy, it may not be a violation of SCOTUS rulings at all), so that doesn't apply.

Thanks.

At this point I've seen enough variants of analysis from enough places that, if the specifics aren't in front of me, which name is being used for what is sort of ... elusive to me.

A friend on social media mentioned Gary Johnson visiting Atlanta today, which prompted me to look something up. He's polling around 3% in the state, I figure that'll end up with him in the 2%+ territory. Rather poor in the big picture but it's actually a high water mark for the party if he does. I did this quick summary for that conversation, figured I might as well share it here just for kicks.
------------

For him, there's (I guess) a fair chance he'll do better than any (L) candidate in state history. I figure he'll end up right around 2 percent, maybe 2 and change. That's relatively heady performance compared to those who came before him.

1.16% in 2012
0.73% in 2008 (with GA native Bob Barr no less)
0.60% in 2004
1.40% in 2000
0.80% in 1996 (finished 4th, Perot had 6.4% for third)
0.31% in 1992 (finished 4th, Perot had 13.34% for third)
0.47% in 1988
????? in 1984 (no candidate on ballot here?)
1.00% in 1980

A lot of Trumps surge in the polls can be attributed to Johnson voters switching. Even though the guy is a bit of a nut job and hasn't done himself any favors it's really hard to argue there isn't a massive ceiling for third parties. Historically unpopular candidates and a pissed off electorate and he's still only polling at 3%. Trump comfortably ahead of McMullin in UT as well

Your last statement is very interesting because I'd say that's exactly what happened with the 14th Amendment. But more on that in a bit. You are correct that the Supreme Court's rulings are binding in terms of how the Constitution is applied. As far as 'divorcing the two', you not only can but you have to. The only way that SCOTUS's rulings would always reflect the Founder's intent would be if A) They actually intended to, which often they have not, and B) They were infallible. I mean, they've contradicted themselves at various points. Two contradictory rulings cannot both reflect the Founder's intent self-evidently. That doesn't make what SCOTUS says an inch less binding, of course, but the two things are simply quite different, if related considerations. Which brings me to ...


Does it? Again, this depends on what we are talking about, modern SCOTUS rulings, or intent and interpretation at the time it was ratified.


Interestingly enough, those who wrote it and ratified it didn't agree. Not only that, but to my earlier point, SCOTUS didn't either. The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, and eight years later in United States v. Cruikshank, the longstanding(i.e., Barron v. Baltimore, etc.) view that, specifically with regard to the 1st and 2nd Amendments in Cruikshank, they did not in fact apply beyond the federal level. The equal protection was not held to mean anything like what you describe it as for several decades later -- it's modern meaning did not even begin to 'evolve'(terrible word to use about the Constitution, btw) -- until, depending on how you measure it, the 1920s. Moreover, they knew exactly what they were doing when they did it(see the writings of Justice William O. Douglas on the subject).


I'm not sure where you get this idea. I'm not comparing that, I'm comparing the boundaries you are describing, as here:


I think I got it the first time :). And my point stands. As you yourself have described it, there are two standards here. One standard for secular belief, and a different, more restrictive standard for religious belief. If secular basis for a law is ok, but religious basis is not, then this isn't about, as you phrased it, 'perfectly neutral governance'. When a basic principle is to have such a split standard, there's not even an attempt at neutrality being made; the religious point of view is demonstrably made to be inferior to the secular one. That's the point of the tax law example. It's not to make any statement about tax law vs. whatever religious law you might imagine per se; but to point out the fact that secular reasoning and religious reasoning are being treated fundamentally different, and further that secular reasoning behind laws does exactly the same thing being prohibited(promoting or undermining one group in society or another).

Yes.

May Antonin rest in peace.

That was probably a little to flippant, but it's been a long week. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many scholars who support a no incorporation view of the 14th Amendment today. Even Scalia, whose views I think you are emulating, was accepting, though sometimes critical, of the reality of the incorporation doctrine. And leading academics on the conservative side like Akhil Amar endorse some form of incorporation.

On this issue I'm more with Thomas than Scalia. Not a bad try though :). It's also worth pointing out that the reason Scalia was pro-incorporation was not because he believed the 14th actually supported it ... in his words, 'it is based on an interpretation of the Due Process Clause that the words will not bear.' Rather, it was based on the stability argument, i.e. stare decisis.

Not sure this is the right place for this but...

{Naive Guy Alert}

So we are still burning churches in America in 2016?

{Naive Guy Alert}

I am not a religious person. Intellectually, I tell myself "Of course, someone would burn the church to cast Trump supporters in a bad light or a Trump supporter actually did it". I also know that synagogues and mosques have also been victims of this sort of terrorism. All that being said, reading the headline about a church being burned hit me in a rather vulnerable emotional spot today.

Unfortunately black churches have been subject to burning and vandalism over the last decade.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There's a way to set up a voter ID law that I wouldn't oppose, but the supporters of these bills give away the game when they lard on all sorts of other provisions designed to supress the vote. I had no idea NC had this new law:

How else would this work? I mean, it's sounds like an accused-friendly civil procedure the way you describe it.

An accusation is made, round one of that requires a certain burden of proof to be met before the accused is even troubled with a court appearance. Only after & if that burden has been met is there any responsibility on the part of the accused. Failure to respond to an accusation being treated as an admission is pretty common stuff afaik, that's exactly how small claims court works in Georgia for example. If you fail to respond, the judgement is automatically in favor of the plaintiff.

wouldnt the system be easily overwhelmed and abused?

Exactly. Leaving it open to citizen challenges makes the whole thing an obvious voter suppression tactic. Generally government attempts to purge voter registration roles remove way more active voters than non-eligible voters and this is bound to be way worse.

Kinda like Salem witch trials...

Except it doesn't.

Each case has to be ruled to have probable cause before anything happens (based on the snippet you posted). And no one, based on that clip at least, is removed if they provide adequate evidence to the contrary.

This has to be one of the sillier hypothetical slippery slope arguments I've heard in a while honestly. Don't be so desperate to invent shit.

No question this one was politically motivated, but the last time we discussed this I recall being shocked at how many "churches", both black and otherwise, there were across the South. A lot are of the one room & homemade variety, which is why investigators have a hard time telling if many are arson or just poor construction/upkeep - Fires in Black Churches, Possibly Caused by Arson, in Ohio, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida - The Atlantic

Toss me on Jon's side here. If a given local panel is corruptly partisan the law is dangerous, but if you have competent people who take it seriously they should be able to weed out any large scale harassment and abuse.

Appropriate evidence includes returned mail.

At least a federal judge also agrees that this looks like something out of Jim Crow.

I absolutely believe that the RNC or DNC would put together a team of citizens' who would simply challenge every voter ni a county/district that didn't fit their bill to clog the system and hopefully stimey whatever votes they can.

Yeah, tough imagining that is the case anywhere.

Trump was at 32.9% on 538 Polls Plus early this morning. He's up to 34.3% now.

Yep. Continuing to creep up and they've got him slightly favored in Florida and North Carolina now. Saw an analysis on there a few days ago that basically said for him to a real significant chance of winning, he's got to get the overall within two points. Right now it's down to 3.2, so closing ... but not quite there. Of course, if Clinton's early voting and ground game are as big of advantages as they could be, that won't be enough. Silver also thinks that there's quite possibly more uncertainty in the polling in general this year.

As a Democrat, this feels like Fergie Time from an old Manchester United home game. You somehow have the lead, but the ref puts 8 minutes of stoppage time on the clock and you still have 5 minutes left.

Also, let's just assume Hillary wins for a moment. Is there a chance the Dems don't run her in 2020, if she's alive and healthy. She's struggling to take out Trump, who most of America claims to hate. I can't imagine how she could expect to win re-election if the Republicans manage to run an not completely insane candidate.

Dola:

I also tell myself every day that I'm not going to look at the polls and I won't even bother reading anything about the election. That lasts about 27 seconds after I wake up, then I sink into even more of a depression.

A lot of this is down to the media having a Goldfish memory with regards to incidents - despite being purely 'hot air' the email fiasco with the FBI which has no evidence or actual substance has acted like a serious torpedo ... and they appear to have conveniently forgotten the numerous incidents which Trump has been involved in both from the past (Pussy video), present (numerous insults and scandals during the campaign) and future (ongoing litigation for fraud and rape) ... because y'know emails.

To me this is simply indicative of it being important to the media that the race runs close because there will be more 'bums on seats' reading and watching if that is the case ... the sad thing (for me at least) will be if their steering of the narrative leads to a Trump victory.

I mean, your governor must be PRAYING that HRC wins this one. :p

Indeed. The media seems to love to give Trump free air time. And I do like that this whole if Clinton is struggling to put Trump away, then a non-insane candidate would destroy her narrative seems to forget that Trump WIPED THE FLOOR with all those non-insane up and comers in the Republican Party.

Plurality = "wiped the floor."

Nope. Not buying it.

I'm not counting Guam, Virgin Islands, or N. Mariana Islands in this calculation.

Early primaries, Trump wins 3 of 4 but 2 are open primaries.

Super Tuesday 1, Trump wins 7 of 11, all 7 are open primaries. At that point he's 1-4 in closed primaries and has only lost Texas as an open primary.

Between Super Tuesdays Trump wins 5 of 11, 2 of them are open primaries. He's now 4-10 in closed primaries going into Super Tuesday 2.

Super Tuesday 2, Trump wins 4 of 5. Florida is the only closed primary. He's now 5-10 in closed primaries and 12-2 in open primaries.

He didn't dominate, and he probably didn't even win amongst GOP primary voters.

It's really hard to reconcile these polls with all this talk of Republicans "crossing over" to reject him. I guess it's some combination of Trump supporters staying in the closet, and independents' greater hatred of Clinton.

It's just amazing how that number goes up literally every few hours or so. It's even higher now.

Wow, i feel like she's going to blow this.

A plurality of 44.9%, when the second closest was 25.1% (Cruz), and after that was 13.8% Kasich and 11.3% Rubio. Followed by Ben Carson at 2.75% and every one else under 1%... yeah, that's wiping the floor with them. I mean the closest person came within 20 points of him.

While it seems to make the race closer, the bad math for Trump is that in order to win he needs to win either New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Colorado, or Wisconsin. 538 has ALL of those states at 65% (NH) or above for Clinton. That's tough to switch in less than a week.

Well, if you want to call that "wiping the floor," then go 'head, hoss. :lol:

He won a bunch of open primaries, lost most of the closed ones, and then pulled away at the end when most had dropped out. He got the GOP nomination, but it's highly suspect to say he was the choice of GOP voters at least through the second Super Tuesday.

Primaries are primaries. With a highly contested Democratic primary, I don't think you can claim that Democrats were coming over to do an "Operation Chaos". These folks in open primaries were folks on the right who preferred to call themselves in Independent, but if they lived in closed primary state, they'd register as Republican.

Trump is going to get 80% or more of the GOP vote. He's the choice of an overwhelming majority of the GOP. Kudos to those that don't vote for him, but it's absolutely fair to say he represents the will of the GOP.

True. However, if his momentum continues unimpeded he's actually somewhat likely to get there(which I shudder at, though perhaps not as much as some). For example, five days ago they had Trump down by 2.4 in Nevada ... now it's a tie there. And Trump is now down by 2.5 in New Hampshire, so if that(or Penn, or whatever) keeps tipping his way ... I think it's close enough to start getting concerned at this point. The kind of move we're seeing right now towards Trump is quite unusual historically at this point in the campaign -- I thought it was over 2-3 weeks ago. Still roughly 6-7% undecideds, and they are going to play a major role as well.

Been watching 538's website for several days and it looks like New Hampshire has been moving towards Trump quickly. A few days ago, it was over 75%. Now it's at 65%. At the rate it's going, it is possible for it to drop to 50/50 or even lean towards Trump by Tuesday.

And all it takes to really tip the scales is for a majority of the "otherwise-would-vote-for-Trump" Gary Johnson voters to flip to Trump, while the "otherwise-would-vote-for-Clinton" Johnson voters to stay with their pick.


Also, I feel like Clinton's message, at least in my area (PA), has gotten stale. For at least the last full month, the ads for Clinton have been all the same one. It's an ad showing Trump saying several things, like "I would bomb the shit out of them" and "And you can tell them to go fuck themselves", etc. That's it. They could have spent the last 2 months running a different ad every week and not run out of material, but it's just been the same ad over and over. Nothing at all about Trump University, nothing at all about the Trump Foundation, nothing about his taxes, nothing about how he doesn't actually have a plan for anything, just "I would bomb the shit out of them" and "I know more about ISIS than the generals, believe me" over and over.

She's not going to blow it. He's not going to blow it.
Neither is going to hit a game-winning homer either.

It all comes down to turnout, who decides to show up on Tuesday.

Look how little impact the endless campaigning & advertising has had. Very little change in voter preference since January.

At this point both candidates are subject to the whims & moods of their respective voting blocks. I'm not at all sure that the candidates aren't just twisting in the wind on those whims at this point, simply pretending that what they do between now & then matters in order to have something to keep themselves busy.

I'm pretty much with you on this point (which I'm seeing & responding to largely in isolation, I haven't even gotten back to whatever post brought this up).

It was a pretty thorough victory when all was said & done.

Also, something that could affect PA. There's a SEPTA strike going on right now in Philadelphia. It has basically crippled public transportation in the city, which is heavily pro-Democrat. A lot of people might not be able to get to the polls on Tuesday if the strike isn't over by then. PA does not have early voting or no-excuse absentee voting.

If you look at NH over time, the only time it was ever for Trump was after the GOP Convention. Even at Clinton's lows in late Sept, she was still at 59% chance of victory in NH. I would argue that that is her floor in the state.