POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by molson

that is an ordinary NFL comeback, maybe down 10 points in the 4th quarter.

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

[bhlloy]

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

[AENeuman]

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

[Jas_lov]

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.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

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 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.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

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

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.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

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.

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.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

I still don't see the correlation between national numbers and percentages in battleground states. It would make sense if the pollings were only in those states but a majority of the population lives in CA, NY, IL and TX and those are not going to flip under any reasonable circumstances. Bush43 said it best when asked about winning percentage (vs. Kerry) - if it mattered, than he would have spent much more time getting the vote out in Texas.

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.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Has she tried the questions/positions thing on
isidewith.com

Even this late in the process (and having already voted), that might be interesting for her. See if there was a candidate that she matched better than she guessed, worse than she guessed, etc etc.

Just a thought.

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.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

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.

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.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

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.

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

[larrymcg421]

Jill Stein is not a fan of John Oliver:

Jill Stein Wants National Conversation On Oppressive Comedians

[Thomkal]

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

[Kodos]

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

[panerd]

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.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Kodos

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

But where would she spend it then?

[JonInMiddleGA]

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.

[Easy Mac]

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.

[molson]

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

[Subby]

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

— TheNewDeal (@TheNewDeal) November 1, 2016

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

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.

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.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

What exactly was the theological reasoning against ACA? And you better not say abortion.

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

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

What exactly was the theological reasoning against ACA? And you better not say abortion.

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.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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

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..."

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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 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 .

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.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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 .

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.

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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."

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?

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 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.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by digamma

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

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.

[Neuqua]

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

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

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.

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

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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

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?

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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."

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

I've always read it as one of Jesus's really clever responses to those that were trying to trick him.

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.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by digamma

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

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.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Neuqua

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

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.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

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.

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.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The implication here seems to be that whatever someone believes, they should vote differently than that if they are part of a majoritarian block?

Sounds like Rawls to me.

[Brian Swartz]

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.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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.

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

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm sympathetic to Comey. I think it was a damned if you do or don't.

Overall, I'm okay with Comey disclosing however I do feel that he should have been more definitive in saying "nothing has been found, don't draw any conclusions, it could well be nothing, it may not have anything on Hillary" etc. and "I am just giving you a FYI".

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.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Jill Stein is not a fan of John Oliver:

Jill Stein Wants National Conversation On Oppressive Comedians

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.)

[molson]

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.

[Brian Swartz]

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.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

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

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

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?

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.'

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.

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.

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.

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.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Non-bold prediction: we are about to witness the ugliest week in the history of American politics.

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

[miked]

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...

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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.

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:

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Christians/Catholics can advocate for the things they believe, but there has to be a sound secular justification as well.

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.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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.

I think we're in agreement on this point.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by cartman

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

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.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by miked

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...

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.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

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.

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.

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.

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.

[digamma]

Bill Weld "vouches" for Clinton on MSNBC tonight.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

nowhere has the Court ruled that the First Amendment applies exclusively to the Federal Government.

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:

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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,"

The other point worth continuing I think is this:

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

the common factor is that nowhere has the Court ruled that the First Amendment applies exclusively to the Federal Government.

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