If someone said Trump had over a 50% probability of winning in 2016, would that be wrong?

It sounds like they simply aren’t making an 8900.

Pennsylvania (R+ 2.4), Michigan (R+1.2), Georgia (R+3.1), Wisconsin (R+1.1) and Nevada (R+2.2) remain in the margin of error or statistically tied, but with a Republican advantage, according to his Sept. 6 analysis.

This is quite misleading. Harris is slightly ahead in all of those states.

Silver explicitly cautioned readers not to misinterpret those numbers:

Let me emphasize again, because we’re now firmly in silly season of the campaign where bad-faith actors can dominate the discussion, that these figures reflect the lean of each state relative to the national numbers — and not the raw projections. For instance, our polling averages still have Harris slightly ahead in Wisconsin, but we show it as GOP-leaning relative to the rest of the country

Then that’s on them.

By definition, there are always things missing in the headline. And the governor’s name is often only of secondary importance.

Illinois governor says sheriff whose deputy fatally shot Sonya Massey in her home should resign

Florida governor, first lady give remarks at DCF summit in Orlando

Texas governor signs bill to ban DEI offices at state public colleges

Georgia Governor Gets Harsh Fact-Check After Deadly School Shooting

Minnesota Governor Vetoes Gig Worker Pay Bill

His name in the first line of the article. Maybe they assume people read the beyond the title.

The ACLU is behind it because there are unintended consequences to getting rid of it.

For example, Florida could pass a law that bans pro-choice advertising from women’s rights groups while still allowing ads from anti-abortion groups.

The only reason they can’t do that today is that pro-choice organizations have First Amendment rights.

There is a misconception that without CU corporations wouldn’t influence elections. But actually without it, politicians could choose which corporations are, or are not, allowed to influence elections.

We don’t meet 8 of his 13 criteria, so by his “proven method” Republicans will win.

Uh, no. He said Democrats meet 8 of 13 keys, and that’s why he thinks Harris will win.

Key 2 – No Primary Contest: With Joe Biden’s endorsement clearing the field for Harris, there are no significant challengers from within the party.

Key 4 – No Third Party: Historically, third parties are detrimental to the White House party. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would need 5% of the vote to influence this key, with a potential stabilization at 10% deemed unlikely by Lichtman.

Key 5 – Strong Short-Term Economy: No recession has been declared by the National Bureau of Economic Research this year.

Key 6 – Strong Long-Term Economy: Economic growth under Biden has exceeded that of the previous two terms, adjusted for inflation.

Key 7 – Major Policy Change: Biden’s policies mark a significant departure from the Trump administration.

Key 8 – No Social Unrest: Lichtman notes that only massive unrest, akin to the 1960s or Black Lives Matter protests, could impact this key. The current unrest is not considered significant enough.

Key 9 – No Scandal: There has been no bipartisan-recognized corruption scandal involving the president.

Key 13 – Uncharismatic Challenger: Donald Trump is perceived as unappealing to voters across party lines.

That wasn’t a prediction, he just said Biden had a better chance of winning in 2024 than Harris.

Since that is now an alternate timeline, we will never know if he was right.

Keep in mind that he doesn’t try to predict who will poll better, in fact he thinks polls are irrelevant.

It’s being decided by all the states. Swing states are simply the ones that pollsters can’t accurately predict.

That’s how Americans voted for hundreds of years.

If we’re going to change how we do things, let’s start with gun ownership. It’s WILD that some places will let you just fill out a form and suddenly be able to get a gun.

The headline is misleading. He isn’t literally saying that Democrats can’t register to vote. He is saying that the city of Houston can’t mail unsolicited voter applications to anyone, Republican or Democrat.

Since Houston has a lot of Democrats, Paxton probably thinks it will hurt Democrats more than Republicans. Then again, Houston city officials might well be using the same reasoning when sending out unsolicited voter applications.

Which is the goal the law was supposed to have as well.

If so, it wouldn’t be the first time the spirit of a law was broken but not the letter.

Except the US isn’t sending weapons to Hungary

Of course they do, Hungary is a NATO power. In fact, those weapons were recently pressured by the Senate.

So what you’re saying is that the Leahy Law is worthless

It’s worthless for the goal you intend.

But imagine the President actually wanted to pressure another country, like maybe Hungary. In that case, it could be very useful.

by falsely claiming that there’s no credible evidence that he’s failed to act on

The law requires him to determine whether a report is credible, and then determine that the responsible parties are being brought to justice.

There are a few reports that he determined were credible, and in each case he determined that the responsible parties were being brought to justice.

So he is complying with the letter of the law, because the law gives no consideration to what anyone else finds credible. And unfortunately there is no mechanism to appeal what he determines, even if the entire rest of the world disagrees.

Or is it that the government is deploying

Leahy Laws give the president extra leverage in foreign policy when they want to use it. In practice, they don’t ever bind the president.

I’m not defending his actions. But the law has enough loopholes that he can ignore those mountains and technically comply with the law.

The Secretary of State is legally required to act only on “credible” reports of human rights violations. Video is certainly credible, but he doesn’t have to find all other reports equally credible.

The public and political reactions to prosecution and/or disciplinary proceedings have zero bearing on Leahy Laws.

Not just questioning. They are still being detained while the prosecutors consider charges.

deleted by creator

Especially after a few soldiers being questioned

Those soldiers were arrested. Which is the first step to bringing them to justice, as required by Leahy Laws.

It’s against US law to supply weapons when you have a reasonable suspicion that they might be used to commit war crimes. In the case of Israel, it’s a certainty.

Human rights violations, not war crimes. The US interprets that as things like torture and rape of captives, not civilian casualties in general.

More importantly, not “you”. It doesn’t matter what the general public suspects or even considers a certainty. The only thing that matters is what the Secretary of State suspects.

Finally, there is an exception: the prohibition is lifted if the Secretary of State (again, not you) believes “the government of such country is taking effective steps to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice.”

In law, wording matters. You can certainly argue that the spirit of Leahy Laws is ignored, but it’s easy to see how the text is being followed.