3 minutes ago, freefourur said:

 

National Republican group plans massive ad buy boosting J.D. Vance, signaling deepening GOP focus on Ohio’s Senate race

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/08/national-republican-group-plans-massive-ad-buy-boosting-jd-vance-signaling-deepening-gop-focus-on-ohios-senate-race.html

 

I would say that there is some worry about this race from the national party.

There is no doubt. I think Ryan has run a brilliant campaign so far, as well as you can from his position and Ohio being a red state. Vance may not have committed the fatal error, yet..... but, he certainly has run a campaign that does not give him room for error. 

I do not think Ohio is like Kentucky or Alabama yet where the only chance for a Dem to win statewide is to have a GOP candidate like a Roy Moore or Matt Bevin. 

4 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Roy Moore or Matt Bevin. 

 

Josh Mandel

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/08/jd-vance-appeared-with-podcaster-jack-murphy-who-said-feminists-need-rape/

 

Quote

J.D. Vance, the Republican nominee for Senate in Ohio, is typically described as the bestselling author of Hillbilly Elegy, a venture capitalist, and a Never Trumper who came to embrace Donald Trump. But that snapshot doesn’t do justice to Vance, a reactionary extremist who yearns to destroy what he calls the “American leadership class” and to implement an extensive and possibly illegal program to cleanse US society of liberal influence. He compares this project to the de-Nazification of Germany following World War II. Last September, Vance outlined this message of revolutionary conservatism on a podcast hosted by a rightwing activist and self-styled masculinity champion who once declared, “Feminists need rape.” During the interview, Vance called for returning Trump to the White House in 2024 so Trump could fire every top and mid-level federal government employee to “deconstruct the administrative state,” and he noted that Trump should even defy the law, if necessary, to mount such a purge.

 

Quote

Yet Vance told Murphy that a restored-to-power Trump should ignore and contravene the law in his effort to crush the civil service: “When the courts—because you will be taken to court—and when the courts stop you, stand before the country, like Andrew Jackson did, and say the chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.” (Vance was referring to when President Jackson refused to accept a 1832 Supreme Court decision that impeded the ability of state governments and the federal government to steal land from indigenous people and forcibly remove them from their territories.) Vance also cited Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orbán as a role model for  a second Trump presidency. 

 

Praising an autocrat and declaring laws shouldn't apply to Republicans...J.D. Vance is really just confirming he's your standard authoritarian Republican.

 

15 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

As he should. Given that he represents the Mahoning valley, and many of his constituents are not college educated voters, loan forgiveness is detrimental to his constituents. 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

As he should. Given that he represents the Mahoning valley, and many of his constituents are not college educated voters, loan forgiveness is detrimental to his constituents. 

 

In reality, they're likely much more beneficial to less-educated voters, some of whom may have gone to college and took on debt but didn't finish to a degree, than the millionaire tax cuts in the previous Congress; but yes, Ryan is framing the loan forgiveness as benefiting "people better off than you,"  which makes it more difficult for Vance to undercut him on that issue.

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

loan forgiveness is detrimental to his constituents. 

 

Any statistics to back this up, or just your assumption?

1 hour ago, Foraker said:

 

In reality, they're likely much more beneficial to less-educated voters, some of whom may have gone to college and took on debt but didn't finish to a degree, than the millionaire tax cuts in the previous Congress; but yes, Ryan is framing the loan forgiveness as benefiting "people better off than you,"  which makes it more difficult for Vance to undercut him on that issue.

Ryan is certainly in front on that issue. There are probably a lot of people who went started school in the area but never finished. Personally, loan forgiveness should have focused first on this group of people vs college graduates because they were the ones suffering the most. They paid for a degree they would never get and could not discharge it in bankruptcy.  I see these people every day and I feel bad for them because they really do not have much hope of pulling themselves out of their debt. 

16 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Ryan is certainly in front on that issue. There are probably a lot of people who went started school in the area but never finished. Personally, loan forgiveness should have focused first on this group of people vs college graduates because they were the ones suffering the most. They paid for a degree they would never get and could not discharge it in bankruptcy.  I see these people every day and I feel bad for them because they really do not have much hope of pulling themselves out of their debt. 

 

I've gotta say, it's refreshing to see that the Democratic Party allows room for dissenting opinions without threatening committee assignments. Ryan's pushback on this will help him with recovering MAGA looking for an alternative to Vance. 

17 hours ago, YABO713 said:

 

I've gotta say, it's refreshing to see that the Democratic Party allows room for dissenting opinions without threatening committee assignments. Ryan's pushback on this will help him with recovering MAGA looking for an alternative to Vance. 

The only way for a Dem to win statewide in Ohio now is to go after the SE Ohio voter. Ryan gets this and is running that campaign. He may not win, but it will be close. Whaley, does not get this, which is one of the reasons why she will lose by double digits (Now in Whaley's defense, she does not have the name recognition either and is running against an incumbent with a strong brand), but her campaigning is not really addressing the themes of Ryan. He has the playbook for a successful (win or lose it is still a successful campaign) Dem campaign in Ohio. 

43 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The only way for a Dem to win statewide in Ohio now is to go after the SE Ohio voter. Ryan gets this and is running that campaign. He may not win, but it will be close. Whaley, does not get this, which is one of the reasons why she will lose by double digits (Now in Whaley's defense, she does not have the name recognition either and is running against an incumbent with a strong brand), but her campaigning is not really addressing the themes of Ryan. He has the playbook for a successful (win or lose it is still a successful campaign) Dem campaign in Ohio. 

 

Maybe not the right thread for this - but I don't understand how a Dem can't win by just pumping up turnout in the major metros. 

29 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

Maybe not the right thread for this - but I don't understand how a Dem can't win by just pumping up turnout in the major metros. 

I think there is just too large of a block in the SE Ohio region, Mahoning Valley, more of the rust belt areas, where voters who were traditional Dem voters up until 2016 felt abandoned by the Dem party, and you cant really blame them either. There just are not enough urban voters to overcome that, especially if there is a very popular candidate on the right. I doubt JD would fit that description of a popular candidate for the right, which helps Ryan's chances too. Ryan is also doing a good job of speaking directly to the people of SE Ohio who left the Dem party over the last decade.  You need them to win Ohio. 

 

Whaley does not seem to understand this. She never really has. during my conversations with her in the past (now it has been about 15 years now) she never felt comfortable with that portion of the electorate. Cranley understood it much better than she did. Which is why Ryan will run a competitive race and the governors race will not be close. 

51 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

Maybe not the right thread for this - but I don't understand how a Dem can't win by just pumping up turnout in the major metros. 

 

Because only the cities and inner rings are solidly Dem.   The major metros include a lot of solidly red or purple areas.   The kind of candidate that can fire up the former is likely to alienate the latter.   

20 hours ago, Foraker said:

 

In reality, they're likely much more beneficial to less-educated voters, some of whom may have gone to college and took on debt but didn't finish to a degree, than the millionaire tax cuts in the previous Congress; but yes, Ryan is framing the loan forgiveness as benefiting "people better off than you,"  which makes it more difficult for Vance to undercut him on that issue.

 

One big difference between Ryan and most of the national party is he's willing to go with what people believe, rather than lecturing them about how they should.  If he stops going against the national party, Vance can base his whole campaign on doing so.

You used to need SEOH very badly to win, but even since 2010 there has been significant population loss in the region despite its higher birthrate than the rest of the state. And the cities of size in Appalachia such as Chillicothe have gotten bluer. The existing electorate on both sides has become more set in their ways though.

1 hour ago, YABO713 said:

 

Maybe not the right thread for this - but I don't understand how a Dem can't win by just pumping up turnout in the major metros. 

 

We're not there yet, but this will be the case in 10 years, especially if Cincy and Columbus keep growing and getting bluer.

19 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Ryan is certainly in front on that issue. There are probably a lot of people who went started school in the area but never finished. Personally, loan forgiveness should have focused first on this group of people vs college graduates because they were the ones suffering the most. They paid for a degree they would never get and could not discharge it in bankruptcy.  I see these people every day and I feel bad for them because they really do not have much hope of pulling themselves out of their debt. 

 

It really did focus on these people though, especially with the extra $10k for Pell recipients and the restructured IBR. They definitely tailored it toward low-income and people who never got a degree.

2 hours ago, DEPACincy said:

 

It really did focus on these people though, especially with the extra $10k for Pell recipients and the restructured IBR. They definitely tailored it toward low-income and people who never got a degree.

The Pell grant part was good, but again, it did not really address those who will never go to college. Of course there are always a few millionaires who will slip through the cracks too and be eligible for loan forgiveness. But there are always loopholes.  I would have much preferred making loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. this way it avoids some of the moral hazard while at the same time providing relief to those who are truly never going to complete a degree and needing to restart their lives upon mistakenly taking student loan debt. I think Ryan understands this part quite well.  

 

4 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The Pell grant part was good, but again, it did not really address those who will never go to college.

 

And what is Vance proposing to do about that?

 

4 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 I would have much preferred making loans dischargeable in bankruptcy. this way it avoids some of the moral hazard while at the same time providing relief to those who are truly never going to complete a degree and needing to restart their lives upon mistakenly taking student loan debt.

 

Student loans already are dischargeable in bankruptcy, although Congress has made it more difficult over the years. 

https://www.tateesq.com/learn/student-loan-bankruptcy-law-history

58 minutes ago, Foraker said:

And what is Vance proposing to do about that?

 

Student loans already are dischargeable in bankruptcy, although Congress has made it more difficult over the years. 

https://www.tateesq.com/learn/student-loan-bankruptcy-law-history

Ryan is out in front of the issue on Vance. But I really do not think anyone dem or Republican is talking seriously about student loans and cost of college. Other than forgiveness which is bad policy for many reasons, the politicians are really not focusing much on it. And who can blame them to some extent. Most college kids and recent grads do not vote, or vote consistently, so politicians really do not have to take them seriously yet. It’s why a plan for loan forgiveness can be proposed that will let’s millionaires receive some benefit from it.
 

regarding the discharge in bankruptcy, you should be able to discharge them in any chapter 7 filing. It should not take an extra petition that many filers do not want to do not have the money to handle. For the tens of thousands with student loan debt and no degree to show for it, an easy discharge through the bankruptcy process would go a long way to clearing their debt, and allowing them an opportunity to build positive credit again.

Edited August 30, 20222 yr by Brutus_buckeye

18 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The Pell grant part was good, but again, it did not really address those who will never go to college.

13 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Ryan is out in front of the issue on Vance. But I really do not think anyone dem or Republican is talking seriously about student loans and cost of college.

OK -- you're unhappy with student loan forgiveness because it didn't help people who never go to college, but when pressed for your proposed solution to aid "those who will never go to college" you say that no one is really talking about the cost of college.  Huh? Reducing the cost of college also fails to address those who will never go to college.

 

Tim Ryan seems to be the only candidate to speak on that issue (and like you he opposed the loan forgiveness).

Quote

"Seventy-four percent of the people in Ohio don’t go to college. So we’ve got to make sure that we’re also focusing on how do we build that workforce up too," Ryan said. "We need to get shop class back in our schools. One of the dumbest things we’ve ever done is tell everybody they’ve got to go to college."

https://www.ideastream.org/news/us-senate-democratic-candidates-lay-out-two-paths-for-the-partys-future-in-ohio

 

 

Vance says inflation is the biggest problem at the moment and the current administration is to blame. 

https://www.richlandsource.com/news/elections/j-d-vance-a-conversation-about-his-campaign-for-the-u-s-senate/article_abf7320e-27b0-11ed-9ea3-975a0a65855d.html

What's his legislative solution?  Less regulation for nuclear energy and natural gas.

https://www.statenews.org/government-politics/2022-07-15/tax-cuts-supply-energy-tim-ryan-and-j-d-vance-take-different-approaches-to-fight-inflation

(Natural gas production seems to be humming along quite well, but we cannot quickly add nuclear capacity so even investing in nuclear right away would have little impact on inflation.)

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=53559

(Two nuclear plants are under construction in the US, both in Georgia. Construction began in 2013 (meaning all the time-consuming regulatory hurdles were cleared by then) on both VOGTLE-3 and VOGTLE-4 and neither is yet operational.  So even if we removed regulations, construction takes a long time.)

https://www.southerncompany.com/innovation/vogtle-3-and-4.html

https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=1042

 

Tim Ryan says that there should be a working class tax cut to ease the pain of inflation in the short term and a return of manufacturing jobs to the US in the medium to long term.

https://www.statenews.org/government-politics/2022-07-15/tax-cuts-supply-energy-tim-ryan-and-j-d-vance-take-different-approaches-to-fight-inflation

(I don't know that further tax cuts help the country in the long run -- we need a better spending plan.)

 

Both Ryan and Vance want a return to US manufacturing and fewer "free trade" deals.  Not really a lot of difference in policy there.  Biden and the current Congress have already done more to bring manufacturing back to the US than any of the preceding presidents in the last 20 years, so both should be supportive of the current administration on that front.

 

Vance says that drugs coming over the southern border is a second big problem and the current administration is to blame.  Vance's solution:

Quote

One is you really do need better healthcare in this country and you need to properly resource drug-addiction facilities so that if a person is ready to take that first step to treatment, there's an actual option available to them. . . .

Number two, . . . you gotta make sure that grandparents actually get the same level of support that's provided to our foster care system. That's number two.

And number three is you've gotta close the border because every single time you add more fentanyl into the state, you're gonna have more people dying from this problem.

https://www.richlandsource.com/news/elections/j-d-vance-a-conversation-about-his-campaign-for-the-u-s-senate/article_abf7320e-27b0-11ed-9ea3-975a0a65855d.html

 

So these solutions are

#1  More funding for drug-addiction programs (Medicare for all?)

#2 More (federal) funding for state foster care programs and (a federal mandate) expanding foster care funding to related family members.

#3 Closing the border so Ted Cruz can't go to Cancun!

(Without saying how he is planning to fund all these government expenditures when he said government spending was to blame for #1 Problem Inflation it's hard to see how he's a serious candidate.)

 

Tim Ryan says we need more border patrol agents but doesn't think we should completely close the border:

Quote

"We've got to keep fentanyl and heroin and these other drugs out of the country. We need more border patrol agents on the ground and at the points of entry. So you got to have a strong border. But at the same time, it doesn't mean you can't accept people who are going to get slaughtered in their own country or your kids are going to be put in the sex trade," said Ryan.

https://www.ideastream.org/news/us-senate-democratic-candidates-lay-out-two-paths-for-the-partys-future-in-ohio

(and Tim Ryan is against Medicare for All, by the way)

 

Tim also said he'd increase funding by taxing the rich (which Vance opposes)

Quote

Ryan has said that money can come from increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans, noting a stat from the Economic Policy Institute showing the average CEO pay has gone up more than 1300% in the last 40 years.

"We need to ask them to pay more – not because we hate them, not because we’re anti-business – but because we only have 330 million people in this country. If we’re going to out-compete China, that’s 1.4 billion, we need to invest into all of our communities, and we have to ask the wealthiest to pay more," said Ryan.

https://www.ideastream.org/news/us-senate-democratic-candidates-lay-out-two-paths-for-the-partys-future-in-ohio

 

Vance has said he would raise some corporate taxes but cut other corporate taxes.  It's not clear whether this would balance out to fund his other spending priorities.

Quote

"By all means, let’s cut the taxes of the companies that invest in our country," Vance says on his campaign website: "But we’re going to raise taxes on companies that ship jobs overseas and use their money to fund anti-American radical movements. If these companies are going to wage war on America, it’s time America wages war on them."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/22/mike-gibbons/senate-race-jd-vances-call-higher-taxes-only-certa/

 

It's really hard to take JD Vance as a serious candidate -- he's all puffery and no substance.  Ryan has at least thought out his plans, even though I disagree with some of them.

20 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The Pell grant part was good, but again, it did not really address those who will never go to college. 

 

11 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

 

It's really hard to take JD Vance as a serious candidate -- he's all puffery and no substance.  Ryan has at least thought out his plans, even though I disagree with some of them.

I can see you like Ryan. I do not know why you seem to think I am attacking Ryan. I think he is running a great campaign and could very well win. I think Vance has been a disappointing candidate so far and is an example of why people should not look to Donald Trump to choose their candidates.  I am not knocking Ryan, however, based on the polls, he is still running behind. He may run the perfect campaign and lose to a candidate who is not as good as him. That happens sometimes. I do not think I have praised Vance (since he got the nomination, I was initially intrigued by him 2 years ago but have been disappointed since). I personally think Vance is running a horrible campaign.

 

That being said, I think come November Vance is likely to win. Nothing against Ryan and not necessarily praising Vance, but it reflects more about where Ohio is politically now than the actual candidates themselves. 

4 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

How did I move the goalposts? 

1) I said loan forgiveness period is bad policy for everyone. 

2) If you want to justify it, you could do so for Pell grant recipients but it is still bad policy

3) The way it has been done allows wealthy borrowers the chance to get forgiveness of $10k 

4) Ryan is right to oppose this because it does not help many of his key constituents in NE and SE Ohio, and that is the key to him winning the election.

The people complaining about student loan forgiveness are the same people who praise the Reagan logic of tax cuts that starve public services and create the massive income inequality we have. Hence why three people have the same wealth as the bottom 50%. So why boomer went to college for essentially minimum wage costs, now people are supposed to pay insane amounts more. The thought that people should have to go into massive debt for higher education, medical care, etc. is such an American unique problem brought on by Conservatives. But they’ll convince the poor working class that the union and other parts of the working class electorate that someone else is the problem.

On 8/29/2022 at 4:59 PM, Brutus_buckeye said:

Ryan is certainly in front on that issue. There are probably a lot of people who went started school in the area but never finished. Personally, loan forgiveness should have focused first on this group of people vs college graduates because they were the ones suffering the most. They paid for a degree they would never get and could not discharge it in bankruptcy.  I see these people every day and I feel bad for them because they really do not have much hope of pulling themselves out of their debt. 

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

How did I move the goalposts? 

1) I said loan forgiveness period is bad policy for everyone. 

2) If you want to justify it, you could do so for Pell grant recipients but it is still bad policy

3) The way it has been done allows wealthy borrowers the chance to get forgiveness of $10k 

4) Ryan is right to oppose this because it does not help many of his key constituents in NE and SE Ohio, and that is the key to him winning the election.

 

You started by saying "loan forgiveness should have focused on people who...started school...but never finished...because they were the ones suffering the most."  Once that was proven to be the case, you moved on to "it did not really address those who never went to college."

 

It's pretty typical of your posts - post something you didn't really research or look up, get disproven, then move on to something else you don't like.

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

I can see you like Ryan. I do not know why you seem to think I am attacking Ryan. I think he is running a great campaign and could very well win. I think Vance has been a disappointing candidate so far and is an example of why people should not look to Donald Trump to choose their candidates.  I am not knocking Ryan, however, based on the polls, he is still running behind. He may run the perfect campaign and lose to a candidate who is not as good as him. That happens sometimes. I do not think I have praised Vance (since he got the nomination, I was initially intrigued by him 2 years ago but have been disappointed since). I personally think Vance is running a horrible campaign.

 

That being said, I think come November Vance is likely to win. Nothing against Ryan and not necessarily praising Vance, but it reflects more about where Ohio is politically now than the actual candidates themselves. 

I actually do not like Ryan, he's too conservative even though a Democrat.  But he is a quality candidate with positions that can be debated.  Vance is a lousy candidate all around, beyond "disappointing" he's Trumpy, all soundbytes and playing to emotions rather than articulating thought-out positions. 

4 minutes ago, Foraker said:

I actually do not like Ryan, he's too conservative even though a Democrat.  But he is a quality candidate with positions that can be debated.  Vance is a lousy candidate all around, beyond "disappointing" he's Trumpy, all soundbytes and playing to emotions rather than articulating thought-out positions. 

 

I don't think there's any real indication of what Vance would actually do in the senate. The guy is just way too disingenuous. 

2 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

 

You started by saying "loan forgiveness should have focused on people who...started school...but never finished...because they were the ones suffering the most."  Once that was proven to be the case, you moved on to "it did not really address those who never went to college."

 

It's pretty typical of your posts - post something you didn't really research or look up, get disproven, then move on to something else you don't like.

 

since you seem to want me to clarify.

It is typical of you to misread the post and attribute something to it that does not exist, just so it better fits your world view. 

I have always said that loan forgiveness is bad. That has not been disproven and most economists on both sides of the aisle share that assessment. What I said is that if you give it to Pell grant recipients, it is less bad, but still not good policy. I also said that there are a lot of people with student loans who did not ever finish college. These people are where we should focus the initial attention on.  My point has not been disproven, which is loan forgiveness is not good policy. 

Quelle surprise!

 

https://www.clevescene.com/news/jimmy-and-dee-haslam-hosting-fundraiser-for-jd-vance-that-tracks-39881139?media=AMP+HTML

9 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

 

You started by saying "loan forgiveness should have focused on people who...started school...but never finished...because they were the ones suffering the most."  Once that was proven to be the case, you moved on to "it did not really address those who never went to college."

 

It's pretty typical of your posts - post something you didn't really research or look up, get disproven, then move on to something else you don't like.

 

In much of Ohio at least, people who didn't go to college -- especially men -- do better financially than those who did in the post-2000 economy. They told everyone not to go into the trades for so long that they didn't. Ones who made the decision to go into them anyway during the '80s and '90s found themselves with little competition. Automotive is the most extreme example if you ask me. In the '60s and '70s so many men wanted to be car mechanics that it didn't pay crap. Everybody already knew how to do it on their own from being hobbyists (being on the hobbyist level was fine to start since cars were so simple and far more similar to each other back then) and didn't want to do anything else. Therefore the market was oversupplied and shops didn't have to pay anything. And most auto tech jobs were non-union so there wasn't any of that kind of support or collective bargaining. So by the '80s they were telling everyone not to do it. And people didn't for years except for the most hard-headed ones, the most tech-savvy that knew how to use an Engine Analyzer and other computer-related diagnostic machines that could handle the fuel injection/computerized ignition advance that the old carburetor guys wouldn't touch and finally the old heads that were the most experienced at running shops so that their lack of new skills didn't matter as much as their grasp of the fundamentals. And, like many other technical positions, tons of required certifications started popping up so you had to start studying for tests and sitting though instructional meetings.

 

Anyway, now all of a sudden there weren't nearly enough auto techs that were good with fuel injection and computers. Wages and the cost of doing business skyrocketed. Sure you could find some young guys and show them how to do brakes, suspension and tires but even that became harder especially as things shifted to trucks/SUVs and those parts became 2-3X heavier and older workers struggled with them. Since it had been so long since they started telling people not to do this there weren't enough leadership positions like shop foreman, fleet manager and service manager the ones who did started making way more money than expected, like $125K-160K. These are your Trump Monsters in their boats and $80K pickup trucks. Almost none of them went to college. They are the few but many and may be modest in the shop but are extra out-of-hand politically and have zero sympathy for those who didn't do the exact same thing they did with their lives. And the first place their mind goes is "where's my handout?" so Vance's rhetoric hits right where he wants it as it is broadcast all over these shops.

 

Today's analogue for the prospective '70s auto tech with "no future" is video game design since everyone wants to do it, colleges are spitting out way, way too many graduates in it, the pitiful amount of jobs pay total crap, they treat people even worse and are concentrated in too few cities. So even worse than being a '70s auto tech since you didn't have to pay to learn it and it went on in every locale in the nation. Colleges don't care that the people don't find jobs since if they couldn't study that major they wouldn't go to college at all and the schools justify it that way as "at least they went to college instead of just making pizzas 12 hours a week and playing games all day for the rest of their lives". We have no idea if what we've seen with auto tech managers whipping around 30 years later and becoming gods will happen with game design majors but I'd say chances are slimmer at best. Game design can always whip back to Asia like it did from 1985-2000. I mean, would you rather play an NES or SNES game developed by Konami or LJN? And that degree does about as little for helping people understand the world around them as learning how to rejet a carburetor does.

 

The world is a cruel place and you as the one who is 30-60 years older than a bunch of teenagers can't feed them inaccurate projections for so long without admitting that you were wrong and not blaming them since you were the ones who gave them that information. And it might come with a bill.

 

https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/09/12/ohio-senate-race-jd-vance-tim-ryan-virtually-tied-in-new-poll/65470854007/

I'm not a "the polls are wrong" person, but I'd love to know how much phone-based polls rely on calling random phone numbers. After years of endless robocalls and spam - how many people answer a call from a number they don't recognize in the first place? And then are willing to provide the caller with anything resembling personal information?

 

Doesn't seem like an especially sophisticated group who would be willing to actually talk with the pollsters, so I have to wonder how good of a cross section they are really getting of overall voters (or if that is somehow being compensated for). Perhaps an established panel they check in with? Maybe someone on here better versed in this process has some insight.

1 hour ago, mrCharlie said:

I'm not a "the polls are wrong" person, but I'd love to know how much phone-based polls rely on calling random phone numbers. After years of endless robocalls and spam - how many people answer a call from a number they don't recognize in the first place? And then are willing to provide the caller with anything resembling personal information?

 

Doesn't seem like an especially sophisticated group who would be willing to actually talk with the pollsters, so I have to wonder how good of a cross section they are really getting of overall voters (or if that is somehow being compensated for). Perhaps an established panel they check in with? Maybe someone on here better versed in this process has some insight.

 

I've been saying this for awhile, phone polls aren't allowed to call cell phones so they depend on land lines that people answer unknown calls on.

6 minutes ago, E Rocc said:

 

I've been saying this for awhile, phone polls aren't allowed to call cell phones so they depend on land lines that people answer unknown calls on.

Guys, the poll image in the posting above literally says it was conducted via “cell and landline.” 
 

Professional pollsters have gotten some high profile races wrong of course, but still overall have a remarkable track record of accurate predictions. They are professionals, political scientists and statisticians. They apply a model (the variation in which explains how different polling companies can have slightly different results) to the raw data, to compensate for all of these “faults” in methodology that us laymen think we know better that the pollsters.
 

If you think the results are just the raw results of the first 500 people that answered their landlines, then you don’t understand how professional political polling works in the 21st century. 

I have gotten several calls on my cell and also text inquiries to poll as an Ohio voter. 

Sometimes I get calls masquerading as polls that turn out to be promotional calls for certain candidates by the end of the call.

Just now, GCrites80s said:

Sometimes I get calls masquerading as polls that turn out to be promotional calls for certain candidates by the end of the call.

 

"Do you favor successful Republican plans for economic recovery or would you rather choose liberal Democrat tyranny?" 

 

 

 

In Ohio, it seems like based on recent poll history, unless the polls are a D+3-D+4 I would tend to think the Republican is winning. 

29 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

In Ohio, it seems like based on recent poll history, unless the polls are a D+3-D+4 I would tend to think the Republican is winning. 

 

Why do you think this? The Senate polling in 2018 was spot on. 

19 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Why do you think this? The Senate polling in 2018 was spot on. 

The governor polling was not spot on. IN 2018 you had an incumbent in the Senate who was popular in the state and was easily able to win. Given that it is an open seat with less name recognition on both candidates, I would tend to think  it is going to lead to more variation. 

10 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The governor polling was not spot on. IN 2018 you had an incumbent in the Senate who was popular in the state and was easily able to win. Given that it is an open seat with less name recognition on both candidates, I would tend to think  it is going to lead to more variation. 

 

The governor polling was actually very good too. The polling average was DeWine +1.5.  DeWine won by 3.7. A miss of 2.2, but got the winner right.

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

In Ohio, it seems like based on recent poll history, unless the polls are a D+3-D+4 I would tend to think the Republican is winning. 

It's going to come down to turnout as always.   If the urban areas turn out, Ryan has a shot.   With Ohio's early voting and absentee rules, there is no excuse for our abysmal turnout.  

Echelon Insight (Alexandria, V.A.) released a poll showing Ryan +6 today. I normally wouldn't give much credence to a pollster of their field, only because they don't generally do much work in candidate polling, more policy matters. However, their last call for Ohio for the 2020 presidential race was Trump +7, which was nearly spot on and fell within their +/- 2.8% margin of error for that data set. A Cincinnati Enquirer poll from September 7th also kicked Vance down nearly 1.5 points in his polling average. Ryan is honestly putting up a fight to win this thing, or he'll die trying. 

 

https://echeloninsights.com/products/voter-omnibus/

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/ohio/

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2022/senate/oh/ohio_senate_vance_vs_ryan-7624.html

It's a hard one to predict. I still think Vance wins it just based on pure partisan split and how hard Ohio has shifted to the right. But it's not impossible for Ryan to win.

5 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

It's a hard one to predict. I still think Vance wins it just based on pure partisan split and how hard Ohio has shifted to the right. But it's not impossible for Ryan to win.

I'm not a fan of this term.   I don't think Ohio has "shifted" to the right.  I think it has "defaulted" to the right, thanks to an aging population and the younger liberal crowd moving out for the big coastal cities.  

^ Exactly that! And gerrymandering.

 

DeWine signed onto a group of Governors that don't want student loans to go away. Ohio is so damn backwards now. I hate it, it was not always this way. Ohio needs these people that grew up in Ohio, and the money they have that will pour into Ohio's economy once they have extra money to spend.

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/13/1122613813/student-loan-forgiveness-biden-states

Edited September 14, 20222 yr by metrocity

13 hours ago, Cleburger said:

I'm not a fan of this term.   I don't think Ohio has "shifted" to the right.  I think it has "defaulted" to the right, thanks to an aging population and the younger liberal crowd moving out for the big coastal cities.  

Yup, unfortunately. Every time a friend moves out of Ohio for California or Colorado bc Ohio is “too red,” it always makes me think that Ohio just got one vote more red. Can’t really say I blame them either though. 

20 hours ago, ryanlammi said:

It's a hard one to predict. I still think Vance wins it just based on pure partisan split and how hard Ohio has shifted to the right. But it's not impossible for Ryan to win.

 

LOL this is interesting because of our respective partisan leans.  At the moment, I think Ryan wins it.  I think this because IRL there are a lot of people in my social circles who are right-leaning semi-swing voters (observant Catholics, upper-income blue-collar whites) and they just don't talk about Vance the way they talk[ed] about Voinivich, Taft, DeWine, Kasich, or even Portman (the latter being a little different from the others but also different from Vance).  The polls showing a lack of enthusiasm for Vance are borne out in my own offline conversations.  I don't know about true aisle-crossing but I could see low turnout among the "gettable Republican vote," so to speak, failing to carry Vance over the line.

 

Another anecdotal point: YouTube clearly somehow knows that I lean right.  Yet the ads I'm getting don't target Ryan at all.  I'm seeing the same ridiculous attack ad against Emilia Sykes every damn time I try to watch a soccer or Ukraine clip.  As far as YouTube is concerned, (a) I'm a likely Republican voter or Republican-leaning swing voter, and (b) there is no U.S. Senate race in Ohio this fall. 🤷‍♂️

13 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

LOL this is interesting because of our respective partisan leans.  At the moment, I think Ryan wins it.  I think this because IRL there are a lot of people in my social circles who are right-leaning semi-swing voters (observant Catholics, upper-income blue-collar whites) and they just don't talk about Vance the way they talk[ed] about Voinivich, Taft, DeWine, Kasich, or even Portman (the latter being a little different from the others but also different from Vance).  The polls showing a lack of enthusiasm for Vance are borne out in my own offline conversations.  I don't know about true aisle-crossing but I could see low turnout among the "gettable Republican vote," so to speak, failing to carry Vance over the line.

 

Another anecdotal point: YouTube clearly somehow knows that I lean right.  Yet the ads I'm getting don't target Ryan at all.  I'm seeing the same ridiculous attack ad against Emilia Sykes every damn time I try to watch a soccer or Ukraine clip.  As far as YouTube is concerned, (a) I'm a likely Republican voter or Republican-leaning swing voter, and (b) there is no U.S. Senate race in Ohio this fall. 🤷‍♂️

 

All I get are "Taxin Tim Ryan" ads