POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

Trump supporters physically blocking people from early voting in Virginia.

They got cleared out by security but I never thought I would ever see so many Americans whole-heartedly endorse fascism.

Forum's as neurotic as ever I see.

The current threat of reproductive rights being retracted wouldnt be an issue if they hadnt been implemented through judicial shenaniganry. Her replacement also wouldnt be a threat if not for her own party setting a precident that lead to lowering the requirements to get in a judge.

I'd say there's a moral lesson about taking shortcuts in there, another about changing rules for short term gain assuming they will never be used against them.

Not that the democrats are going to learn, to them restraint and foresight are as alien concepts as why elder abuse is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

I'd say there's a moral lesson about taking shortcuts in there, another about changing rules for short term gain assuming they will never be used against them.

Not that the democrats are going to learn, to them restraint and foresight are as alien concepts as why elder abuse is wrong.

---

Now thats rich.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Donald Trump on the Supreme Court vacancy (there's no such thing as a subtext anymore, only Zuul): "We should act quickly because we're going to have probably election things involved here, you know, because of the fake ballots that they'll be sending out."

So basically every major Democratic elected official, even some of the traditionally-conservative and institutionalist ones, are warning of constitutional armageddon flowing from recent events. Hooah discussed Rep. Nadler dismissing the cause of impeaching Barr just a few months ago; now he's talking packing. Even the remaining Never-Trump conservatives seem to agree that Democrats have warrant to pack the courts to thwart subordinating configurations. Republicans really thought they could dissolve all restraints of civic peace toward a Bolshevik seizure of power and Democrats would perpetually crouch and surrender.

If the righteous ire has indeed boiled over, then - forgive me for resorting to such crass pop-culture memery - this may be the prescient thumotic analogy.


https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...h-care-economy

Quote:

---

However, more voters view Supreme Court appointments as a very important issue today than did so in June 2016, during the presidential election. At that time, 65% of voters (70% of Republicans and 62% of Democrats) said court appointments were very important.

There are sizable partisan gaps over the importance of a number issues. As in the past, Democratic voters (82%) are far more likely than Republicans (38%) to say the environment will be very important.

https://i.imgur.com/2UkuyE3.png

---

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/19/polit...rbg/index.html

Quote:

---

A new Marquette University Law School poll paints the landscape well. Nationally, it finds that 59% of Biden voters say that appointing the next Supreme Court justice is very important to their vote. Compare that with only 51% of Trump voters.
This finding matches what we saw in a CNN/SSRS poll last month. In that poll, 78% of Biden backers told pollsters that nominating the next justice was extremely or very important to their vote. That compared with 64% of Trump supporters. (It was 47% Biden supporters and 32% Trump supporters who said it was extremely important.) Compare these numbers to what we saw heading into the 2016 election. The final CNN/ORC poll in that cycle showed that 58% of Trump supporters said that nominating the next Supreme Court justice was extremely important to their vote, while only 46% of Hillary Clinton voters said the same. In the 2016 exit poll, Trump beat Clinton by a 15 point margin among those who put Supreme Court appointments as the most important factor to their vote.

---

Republicans post-Clinton could probably have attained permanent majorities just by toning down the sexism and racism. But like true fascists to the core, they had to go all-in as a revolutionary movement.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...ollege-degrees

https://www.economist.com/img/b/1000...9_WOC599_0.png


Interesting thread about loose Trump-supporters and abortion politics.
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/statu...00610044297217

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Forum's as neurotic as ever I see.

The current threat of reproductive rights being retracted wouldnt be an issue if they hadnt been implemented through judicial shenaniganry. Her replacement also wouldnt be a threat if not for her own party setting a precident that lead to lowering the requirements to get in a judge.

I'd say there's a moral lesson about taking shortcuts in there, another about changing rules for short term gain assuming they will never be used against them.

Not that the democrats are going to learn, to them restraint and foresight are as alien concepts as why elder abuse is wrong.

---

Wrong at each step. Typically-illiterate contribution. Maybe ACIN would care to lecture you about the political context of Marbury v. Madison.

Quote:

---

Even the remaining Never-Trump conservatives seem to agree that Democrats have warrant to pack the courts to thwart subordinating configurations. Republicans really thought they could dissolve all restraints of civic peace toward a Bolshevik seizure of power and Democrats would perpetually crouch and surrender

---

I think it would be a mistake on the Dems part to get sucked into all the hysteria surrounding this SCOTUS pick. In the end, unless 4 GOP senators break with party line, and all 47 Dems vote as a single bloc, there's nothing the Dems can do to stop it. That doesn't mean they should just run up the white flag, but allowing the GOP to divert the focus from the abysmal pandemic response, the shit-hole economy, the rampant white supremacy in the White House, the lack of respect for military veterans, etc, etc, etc, is exactly playing into Fearless Leaders game. If all of that is allowed to fade into the current noise about court-packing, and veiled threats about 'retaliation', then the Dems simply continue to be bringing a knife to a gun fight. They will lose. Stay focused on COVID-19, the economy, and the subversion of democracy.

Still not jealous, Pannonian?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/h...sting-cdc.html

Quote:

---

A heavily criticized recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last month about who should be tested for the coronavirus was not written by C.D.C. scientists and was posted to the agency’s website despite their serious objections, according to several people familiar with the matter as well as internal documents obtained by The New York Times.

The guidance said it was not necessary to test people without symptoms of Covid-19 even if they had been exposed to the virus. It came at a time when public health experts were pushing for more testing rather than less, and administration officials told The Times that the document was a C.D.C. product and had been revised with input from the agency’s director, Dr. Robert Redfield.

But officials told The Times this week that the Department of Health and Human Services did the rewriting and then “dropped” it into the C.D.C.’s public website, flouting the agency’s strict scientific review process.

---

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...mcconnell.html

Quote:

---

Many of us are coping with that lacerating redefinition by knowingly rolling our eyes. Ginsburg’s death hurts, but more than one strain of political grief is operative. This is why so many political reactions at present seem to orbit around the question of whether an unwanted outcome was unexpected. “And you’re surprised?” is a frequent response to some new instance of Trumpian corruption. This brand of cynicism has spread, quite understandably: It’s an outlook that provides some cognitive shelter in a situation that—having historically been at least somewhat rule-bound—has one side shredding the rules and cheering at how much they’re winning. Folks who at one point gave Republican declarations of principle the benefit of the doubt (I include myself) feel like chumps now. Conversely, the cynical prognosticators who used to seem crabbed and paranoid just keep getting proven right. Whatever the worst thing you imagine McConnell doing might be, he can usually trump it.

---

:smug::creep:

Quote:

---

GOP appointees have been a majority of the Supreme Court since I was six months old.

With a new confirmation, they could easily remain a majority until I am 65 and possibly until I am 70, even if the GOP never wins the presidency or Senate again.

---

California Senator Feinstein on filibuster: “I don't believe in doing that. I think the filibuster serves a purpose. It is not often used, it's often less used now than when I first came, and I think it's part of the Senate that differentiates itself.” :shame:


Trump on Supreme Court vacancy: 'When you have the votes, you can sort of do what you want'

When we have the votes, overhaul the federal judiciary, admit new states, curtail gerrymandering and voting rights restrictions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

I think it would be a mistake on the Dems part to get sucked into all the hysteria surrounding this SCOTUS pick. In the end, unless 4 GOP senators break with party line, and all 47 Dems vote as a single bloc, there's nothing the Dems can do to stop it. That doesn't mean they should just run up the white flag, but allowing the GOP to divert the focus from the abysmal pandemic response, the shit-hole economy, the rampant white supremacy in the White House, the lack of respect for military veterans, etc, etc, etc, is exactly playing into Fearless Leaders game. If all of that is allowed to fade into the current noise about court-packing, and veiled threats about 'retaliation', then the Dems simply continue to be bringing a knife to a gun fight. They will lose. Stay focused on COVID-19, the economy, and the subversion of democracy.

---

I basically agree, but beyond messaging the issue itself I want to highlight the significance vis-a-vis the Democratic agenda - and it's something that has become an emergent motivator of Democrats and Independents. It's reassuring to see how many have been at least halfway-radicalized, by not just the concrete power seizure and threat to American life but the sheer insult of it. As they should be! I made two mistakes in my previous post, first using "civic" where I meant "civil," and "Bolshevik" where "Bolshevist" would have been apter as an allusion. I hope you understand.

Regardless of what kind of rhetorical posture or focus individual Dems adopt around it during the campaigning - and Biden surely would never be the standardbearer here - the Supreme Court is on almost everyone's mind; positive indicators as to the Dems' willingness and ability to respond appropriately remind us of what's needful and give us confidence that the party will fight on our behalf. The Dems shouldn't try to shut down the government over this, but once in power the only way forward is structural reform.

You've got me on the sheer cynicism of US Republican politics; while our lot are similarly cynical, it's on a smaller scale, eg. Commander in Chief Dom Cummings editing his blog to make it seem as though he'd predicted the pandemic. However, our lot still has Brexit coming up, and the lovely matter of food supplies (2 day queues at the border, mmm). And your lot will be out of office this time next year. Our lot has another 4 years at least.

Quote:

---

positive indicators as to the Dems' willingness and ability to respond appropriately remind us of what's needful and give us confidence that the party will fight on our behalf. The Dems shouldn't try to shut down the government over this, but once in power the only way forward is structural reform.

---

There's an immense gulf between what is needed, and what will be possible. This is where Biden falls flat on his ass as a president. He still believes in the "old school" way of bi-partisan action, and ideologically, that's the way you'd like to see a democratic government work. However, the word "compromise" is as foreign to today's Capital Hill politics as a White Rhino, which is to say non-existent. If Biden gets elected as president, he will face a Republican party that will be actively trying to limit the policies he can enable, and working diligently to recapture the White House in 2024, rather than enact legislation that benefits the American people. If the Dems somehow manage to gain the Senate this fall, reacquaint yourself with the term filibuster.

As a recent indicator, Biden's appeal to GOP senators on delaying the SCOTUS appointment: “Please, follow your conscience,” [...] “Don’t go there. Uphold your constitutional duty, your conscience; let the people speak.” The result? Basically an 'eff you, we are in a position of power, right now, and there's nothing you can do about it.' This article says it much better than me:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...anship/616431/

Quote:

---

“The thing that will fundamentally change with Donald Trump out of the White House, not a joke, is you will see an epiphany occur among many of my Republican friends,” he said in May 2019. This prediction echoed something he said back in 2012, just before his ticket with President Barack Obama won reelection: “We need leaders that can control their party, and I think you’re gonna see the fever break.”

The return to this theme is evidence of Biden’s sincere, long-standing belief in bipartisanship. It is also evidence that his theory, though it may be popular with voters, reflects a failure to grapple with the challenge of contemporary power politics. The second Obama term did not see any fevers break. In the most blatant example of the new power politics, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stonewalled Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It worked, and Trump appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch to fill the open seat.

Now another Supreme Court seat has opened shortly before an election. McConnell promptly promised to fill the seat, tacitly admitting what had been clear to most people all along: The Garland blockade was always about power politics, not precedent or procedure. Biden continues to act, however, as though appeals to propriety can work. Granted, he is not the president—at least not yet, though he believes he will be soon. Still, his appeal to GOP senators has provided a good test run for how his aisle-reaching might go, and it’s not encouraging.

---

This is how Republicans think:

Quote:

---

Trump was able to pull off the hundreds-of-judges feat by turning the process almost entirely over to conservative legal activists and to the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, who created many of the vacancies in the first place by blocking Barack Obama appointees.

Trump told Woodward those vacancies were “golden nuggets” and it is quite clear what Trump bought with them: the faithful support of evangelical Christian and conservative Republican voters for whom restrictions on abortion and immigration, the elimination of environmental regulations and the ability to restrict access to voting are top political objectives.

“You know what Mitch’s biggest thing is in the whole world? His judges,” Trump told Woodward. “He will absolutely ask me, please let’s get the judge approved instead of 10 ambassadors.”

---

Until the Dems understand that the GOP are street brawlers who don't fight fair, and adjust their thinking to deal with that, their stay in the White House, should Biden gain it, will be brief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

In times like these, how do you not fundamentally challenge the basic tenets of conservatism when you see how quickly, and how boldly, it devolved itself into conspiratorial cults.

---

It is saddening that so many self-styled 'conservatives' (American, not Dictionary, definition) were able to punt so much of the core of conservative thinking in favor of power. I am still aghast at the great ignorance of so many that allowed this demagogue to come to the fore -- and sickened by the notable number of people who SOUGHT this end, knowing him for what he was.

My conservatism has always been rooted in economics and personal liberty. As such, I have seldom objected to any number of the "social" reforms advocated by the left. Any rational consideration of such issues as equal treatment regardless of sex, ancestry, skin-tone, sexuality and the like must arrive at the conclusion that equality of treatment under the law and equality of opportunity have to be the goals for which we strive. I vividly recall responding to a brother Knight of Columbus, who was stating that same-sex marriage would cheapen the concept of marriage, that the only people who could "cheapen" his marriage were himself and his spouse. Too many of them were traditionalists and/or reactionaries without being conservatives.

I strive to be the latter. It does, however, require self-reflection and occasional self-recrimination -- and too few who now support the GOP are willing to do this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Trump supporters physically blocking people from early voting in Virginia.

They got cleared out by security but I never thought I would ever see so many Americans whole-heartedly endorse fascism.

---

Asinine. If you wish to protest, harangue, exercise free speech you may do so. But your rights stop at my nose and you cannot exercise your rights to the exclusion of mine.

Blocking the suffrage!!!!!!!!!! Jail time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

...Until the Dems understand that the GOP are street brawlers who don't fight fair, and adjust their thinking to deal with that, their stay in the White House, should Biden gain it, will be brief.

---

I think most of the DEM leadership get this. I am not sure about the traditionally diverse (to the point of splintered) vote base for the Dems.

After 20 years of Limbaugh and Hannity "schooling" them in the credo that Liberalism is an evil to be broken and that compromise is defeat, the GOP has chosen a brawling demagogue for its leader, shed the dross (like me) who consider meaningful negotiation as viable, and are relying on their tenacity and numbers to break the Democrat hold on power -- and yes, they see it in exactly those terms. They are David, fighting the good fight against an evil giant Philistine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

California Senator Feinstein on filibuster: “I don't believe in doing that. I think the filibuster serves a purpose. It is not often used, it's often less used now than when I first came, and I think it's part of the Senate that differentiates itself.” :shame:

---

Prior to the past few months I thought that the Dems were in the right to be even-keeled and cautious on their approach.

But now? Hearing Dems like Feinstein say that we shouldn’t get rid of the filibuster? Time to vote her out and replace her with someone who will play hardball. I’m tired of Dems being rolled over because we are too nice. Fuck nice. We need to decimate the GOP so that they never hold office higher than county dogcatcher. Bring out the knives because any action less than that has my absolute contempt now. I do not know how much of what Biden is saying now is to "calm" the folks in the center who would be afraid of extreme rhetoric versus what he actually would do. One small bright point is that Kamala stated that she would be open to the idea so perhaps thats the push he would need to support the idea once elected.

Quote:

---

Prior to the past few months I thought that the Dems were in the right to be even-keeled and cautious on their approach.

---

Make no mistake, there are many Dems that need to be part of the house cleaning so desperately needed in Washington. There are far too many Dems that spend their time lashing out at the left-wing portion of the party, and who actually see them (and perhaps rightly so) as more of a threat to their continued hold on their seat and power. They continue to be influenced by big-bucks donors, and are content with the status quo because it's comfortable for them....here's looking at you Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer:stare:

What's really needed is a complete overhaul of the two party system, but that is as likely to happen as snow in the Amazon. The voting process is also badly in need of overhaul, as well. That's as unlikely to happen as the first.

As long as do-the-bare-minimum-to-stay-in-office Democrats remain in office, they will continue to get steam-rolled by Republicans because they do not want to risk the status quo, rather than fight for the people they are supposed to represent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

Make no mistake, there are many Dems that need to be part of the house cleaning so desperately needed in Washington. There are far too many Dems that spend their time lashing out at the left-wing portion of the party, and who actually see them (and perhaps rightly so) as more of a threat to their continued hold on their seat and power. They continue to be influenced by big-bucks donors, and are content with the status quo because it's comfortable for them....here's looking at you Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer:stare:

What's really needed is a complete overhaul of the two party system, but that is as likely to happen as snow in the Amazon. The voting process is also badly in need of overhaul, as well. That's as unlikely to happen as the first.

As long as do-the-bare-minimum-to-stay-in-office Democrats remain in office, they will continue to get steam-rolled by Republicans because they do not want to risk the status quo, rather than fight for the people they are supposed to represent.

---

A bit of advice from this side of the pond. Do not mistake purity of identity with doing good. Don't clean house to the point where you're dropping people who are doing practical good because they don't conform with your idea of the pure ideal. Promote the good stuff you're doing. Don't get caught up in identity politics. The right will always win on identity politics. Make the discussion otherwise. Make it patriotic to do good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

A bit of advice from this side of the pond. Do not mistake purity of identity with doing good. Don't clean house to the point where you're dropping people who are doing practical good because they don't conform with your idea of the pure ideal. Promote the good stuff you're doing. Don't get caught up in identity politics. The right will always win on identity politics. Make the discussion otherwise. Make it patriotic to do good.

---

This is where I am at. I don't believe in completely cleaning house for the sake of cleaning house, but rather a careful assessment of who isnt pulling their weight and go from there. There needs to be a balance of ideologues and pragmatists- one to dream big, the other to figure out how to actually get it done. For example lets take two freshman House Dems: AOC and Lauren Underwood. AOC is great at the rhetoric, but her legislative accomplishments are rather thin. Zero of her bills have even left committee. Three of Underwood's bills have passed the House, however she isn't really one to make waves in the news. I'd wager that most probably don't even know who she is. I think there is great value in both of these approaches to governance and we need both of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

This is where I am at. I don't believe in completely cleaning house for the sake of cleaning house, but rather a careful assessment of who isnt pulling their weight and go from there. There needs to be a balance of ideologues and pragmatists- one to dream big, the other to figure out how to actually get it done. For example lets take two freshman House Dems: AOC and Lauren Underwood. AOC is great at the rhetoric, but her legislative accomplishments are rather thin. Zero of her bills have even left committee. Three of Underwood's bills have passed the House, however she isn't really one to make waves in the news. I'd wager that most probably don't even know who she is. I think there is great value in both of these approaches to governance and we need both of them.

---

Over here, the left went through a period of utterly demonising the Labour government as no different from the Tories. It succeeded in getting them control of the Labour party as the narrative went that the Blairites had betrayed them and someone completely different was needed to redress the balance. Unfortunately, while they won the party-internal debate, their stance completely sabotaged the party-external debate.

So while they had control of the party, they alienated the electorate outside the party. Even as they engaged in identity politics and yelling traitor at anyone not subscribing completely to their creed, the Tories were allowed to be as incompetent and repulsive as they liked, as the most substantive arguments against them weren't allowed to be aired as they made the previous Labour government look good, which goes against the raison d'etre of the puritan left. If the Blairite government did so much good, why does there need to be a reaction against it? Hence the Blairite government did nothing good and plenty of harm, goes the leftist argument. And hence there is no answer to the Tories, as even the Labour party are saying that the Labour government was abominable.

So to the liberal left in the US: don't be as stupid as the left in the UK. Find things you've done that even moderate conservatives can be proud of as Americans, and highlight them.

Quote:

---

I don't believe in completely cleaning house for the sake of cleaning house, but rather a careful assessment of who isnt pulling their weight and go from there

---

First of all, let's be real...house cleaning isn't going to happen, at least not to the extent it needs to be done. The top two Dems, Pelosi and Schumer are virtually untouchable because of seniority and that they are both excellent fund raisers. However, name me a single piece of non-emergency legislation of substance that either of them has gotten enacted in the last two years?

Pelosi has three that actually became law: HR 3144, HR 1327, and HR 6655:

https://www.congress.gov/member/nanc...wType=expanded

Schumer has three, as well: S 151, S 2047, S 4116:

https://www.congress.gov/member/char...ize=100&page=1

Yes Schumer has an uphill battle in the Senate, but still, are any of those bills that made it into law anything of substance?

And then there's this asinine comment:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...at/5844313002/

Quote:

---

While she didn't immediately spurn the idea of impeachment, Pelosi did shoot down the possibility of using federal funding as leverage to stall a nominee.

"None of us has any interest in shutting down government. That has such a harmful and painful impact on so many people in our country. So I would hope that we can just proceed with that," she said when asked about that possibility. "There is some enthusiasm among some exuberance on the left to say let's use that, but we're not going to be shutting down government."

Pelosi did not answer directly when asked if she would consider, as some liberals have suggested, of expanding the number of justices on the court – often referred to as court-packing – in retaliation if Trump successfully adds another conservative to the bench before leaving office.

"Well, let's just win the election. Let's hope that the president will see the light," she said.

---

What light? Oh, you mean this light:

Quote:

---

"I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way. And I think you said you're going to test that too... So, we'll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute - that's pretty powerful."

---

[Trump statement back in April]

Pelosi has pretty much run up the white flag:surrender2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Wrong at each step. Typically-illiterate contribution. Maybe ACIN would care to lecture you about the political context of Marbury v. Madison.

---

Deaf ears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

Until the Dems understand that the GOP are street brawlers who don't fight fair, and adjust their thinking to deal with that, their stay in the White House, should Biden gain it, will be brief.

---

There have been accumulating indicators that Biden does understand (by now), and influential House and Senate Dems have been fairly insistent that they will not tolerate obstructionism any longer - even before RBG's death.

Should at least 52 Democratic Senators hold office come January, I'd like to bet the dams will break. (50 or 51 is a little tricky for predictions...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Prior to the past few months I thought that the Dems were in the right to be even-keeled and cautious on their approach.

But now? Hearing Dems like Feinstein say that we shouldn’t get rid of the filibuster? Time to vote her out and replace her with someone who will play hardball. I’m tired of Dems being rolled over because we are too nice. Fuck nice. We need to decimate the GOP so that they never hold office higher than county dogcatcher. Bring out the knives because any action less than that has my absolute contempt now. I do not know how much of what Biden is saying now is to "calm" the folks in the center who would be afraid of extreme rhetoric versus what he actually would do. One small bright point is that Kamala stated that she would be open to the idea so perhaps thats the push he would need to support the idea once elected.

---

California had the chance a couple years ago. She won the primary by 8 points. Honestly, she should have retired by now. Ginsburg's age and as California senator she's been acting like she's senator from Missouri or something for however many years.

Look, something else Dems need to understand: it's OK to play the gray man for a soundbite nation. It's not that you have to run on hardball - just do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

This is where I am at. I don't believe in completely cleaning house for the sake of cleaning house, but rather a careful assessment of who isnt pulling their weight and go from there. There needs to be a balance of ideologues and pragmatists- one to dream big, the other to figure out how to actually get it done. For example lets take two freshman House Dems: AOC and Lauren Underwood. AOC is great at the rhetoric, but her legislative accomplishments are rather thin. Zero of her bills have even left committee. Three of Underwood's bills have passed the House, however she isn't really one to make waves in the news. I'd wager that most probably don't even know who she is. I think there is great value in both of these approaches to governance and we need both of them.

---

Too much of the bashing of AOC is performative rather than performance-based. The Underwood bills that the House discharged are - marginal items of a few hundred words each, whose ratification into law would be of unclear impact. That's not to say that they're necessarily without value, but they don't support a comparative judgement on legislative skill or value.

Granted, the general formula seems to be that running against one's own party is unproductive to the extent one doesn't expect to carry its base on personal loyalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

However, name me a single piece of non-emergency legislation of substance that either of them has gotten enacted in the last two years?

---

I don't understand why, categorically speaking, this is a relevant standard under a hostile presidency.

Quote:

---

Pelosi has pretty much run up the white flag:surrender2:

---

I'm pretty sure she's trolling him. She's released a lot of statements mocking Trump over the years.

She may be the single most effective Democrat currently sitting, in her role. Can you think of an available, plausible replacement for Speaker that would be superior in their qualities? She's not the one limiting Democratic electeds, whereas conservative Dems in the caucus could be described as having that effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

California had the chance a couple years ago. She won the primary by 8 points. Honestly, she should have retired by now. Ginsburg's age and as California senator she's been acting like she's senator from Missouri or something for however many years.

---

Feinstein is a straight fucking moron. I still remember when she got indignant with fucking children who asked for a green new deal and her mind devolved below that of the children she was talking to.
https://youtu.be/jEPo34LCss8

"I know what I am doing." Why are you defending yourself to kids?
"I got elected by a plurality." Yes that is how elections work.
"How old are you? (girl admits she is 16) Well you didn't vote for me." How fucking petty are you Senator? Arn't you the one with the political power, and you have to make a point on why you are not going to listen to a 16 year old?

She is an absolute moron and if I ever saw her, I would tell her that.

Too late to change the narrative about Sleepy Joe?

Really looking forward to the debate. Not that it will seriously affect the outcome of the elections, but the reactions of the cult will be very interesting. Many of them genuinely believe that Biden has Alzheimer and that Trump is a master orator, so the inevitable mental gymnastics of either ignoring the result or trying to spin it into something else promise to generate a lot of comedy material.

My guess is they'll argue that Donald owned his opponent and all that polls suggesting otherwise have been doctored by the lying, liberal media. Let's wait and see...

From the above link:

Quote:

---

“Virtually every question for Joe Biden was an invitation for him to attack President Trump, while moderator Anderson Cooper offered almost no pushback, giving Biden a total pass on his lies and misrepresentations,” said the Trump campaign in a statement after Biden’s appearance on the network.

Another Trump supporter accused Biden of receiving advance notice of the questions in a bid to rationalize his performance last week. “Looks to me that Biden had an idea of what the questions would be, at least areas of questioning,” tweeted former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly during the town hall. In a subsequent tweet, O’Reilly said he had “simply tweeted an observation.”

---

I guess they missed all those softballs that Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham served up to Trump during Fox News interviews:rolleyes:

What a bunch of duplicitous, whinny bitches....:laugh4:

Quote:

---

I don't understand why, categorically speaking, this is a relevant standard under a hostile presidency.

---

So you'd rather give her a free pass because she faces hostile Republicans in the Senate and White House?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Too much of the bashing of AOC is performative rather than performance-based. The Underwood bills that the House discharged are - marginal items of a few hundred words each, whose ratification into law would be of unclear impact. That's not to say that they're necessarily without value, but they don't support a comparative judgement on legislative skill or value.

---

Disagree. As someone who has seen the process first-hand, even getting a bill out of committee and on the House floor for a vote is a big deal. There have been literally thousands of bills introduced this legislative session, very few make it out of committee not because their ideas don't have merit, but because there are so many other things in the way that take precedence. The fact that a freshman congressperson got anything out of committee is a testament to her legislative skill, as it takes persistence and the building of relationships with her colleagues to move the ball forward.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

However, name me a single piece of non-emergency legislation of substance that either of them has gotten enacted in the last two years?

---

I don't understand why, categorically speaking, this is a relevant standard under a hostile presidency.

---

Agreed.

And if one really thinks that Pelosi hasn't been effective at her job one should really take a look at her record because there's some really important things there. Like raising the federal minimum wage in 2007 under Bush and passing the ACA with a public option (that the Senate removed).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

So you'd rather give her a free pass because she faces hostile Republicans in the Senate and White House?

---

What do you expect her to do? She can't force Mitch to take up House bills nor can she routinely shut down the government.

Quote:

---

And if one really thinks that Pelosi hasn't been effective at her job one should really take a look at her record because there's some really important things there.

---

I would agree with that. I wasn't critiquing her entire career. I specifically mentioned the last two years. So are the Dems that helpless that she can't influence the Senate, or is she simply coasting into the twilight of her career? Given the extreme polarization of our Congress, I understand it's difficult to get anything done these days, which is a gross understatement, IMHO. My point is, if the GOP has such a tight grip on nearly every aspect of our government, you might want to get a wee bit more active in doing things to loosen that. I also realize that it's up to the American people to vote the more corrupt Republicans (and Dems) out of office, and if that can't be done, then we move even further towards an authoritarian state.

This probably doesn't lend itself to party unity:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dccc-...b01ebeef0ec3ae

Quote:

---

One Democratic strategist said that while it’s understandable the DCCC wants to protect its incumbents, it was a bad idea to blacklist firms that work with challengers. There are only a limited number of races, and the party already tends to work with the established firms.

Rebecca Katz, a longtime adviser for progressive Democrats, worried that the move would make the already difficult path for primary challengers that much rockier.

“If there’s a candidate who you know has the opportunity to go far and inspire, but you as a consultant think it will doom your business, you’re going to think twice,” Katz said, before declaring that it would not deter her.

The DCCC is “doing this to send a message. And I think the message sucks,” she added.

Faced with an insurgency several years earlier than Democrats, however, national Republicans took similarly dramatic steps to punish those who would aid primary challengers. In 2013, the National Republican Senatorial Committee barred the firm Jamestown Associates from receiving any NRSC contracts, after Jamestown consulted for the Senate Conservatives Fund, which tried to oust Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).

A national Republican strategist applauded his Democratic counterparts for learning from the GOP’s difficulties with an aggressive anti-establishment wing.

“Republicans spent three cycles figuring this out. Democrats have the benefit of seeing what we eventually figured out,” the strategist said. “This might help them defeat the lunacy faster.”

---

Protecting the status quo, IMHO. And Pelosi gave her unwavering endorsement to this policy.

On the flip side, it will be informative to see how strenuously she supports this:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...-change-345503

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

So are the Dems that helpless that she can't influence the Senate, or is she simply coasting into the twilight of her career?

---

So what actions could she take to influence the Senate? We have seen ample evidence that McConnell just doesnt give a flying fig. And the courts have ruled that the House can't actually enforce subpoenas without a law specifically saying they can, which hasnt been an issue until now since the norms of showing up after a subpoena havent been blatantly ignored like this before.

If anything needs to be redone on the congressional side are the rules around the powers of the Senate majority leader I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

F
I guess they missed all those softballs that Hannity, Carlson, and Ingraham served up to Trump during Fox News interviews:rolleyes:

What a bunch of duplicitous, whinny bitches....:laugh4:

---

Biden did get softballs, almost lead-ins, to take shots at the Donald. To be fair, that is not the most challenging of targets.

But yes, Trump tweets and Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter diatribes are very much trying to depict Biden as being mentally "past it." By contrast, they laud Trump for his straightforward and unpretentious speech. The cult adores that he does not speak well, many of the cultists cannot get through a paragraph without using some variant on "fuck" as an intensifier and they are thrilled that he seems on the verge of saying things just that way at any moment. An easy demagogue tool for DJT.

Quote:

---

If anything needs to be redone on the congressional side are the rules around the powers of the Senate majority leader I think.

---

And call it the Mitch McConnell amendment:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Biden did get softballs, almost lead-ins, to take shots at the Donald. To be fair, that is not the most challenging of targets.

---

He certainly did. My point is the laughable comments about him getting served up, when Fearless Leader hardly dares to venture outside of Fox News. He knows his lies and mis-leading statements will get challenged.

I'm sure many of you have read a ton of "what if" scenarios for the coming shit storm in November, as I have. I thought this article covered some of the more frightening ones, and is a pretty good summary of all the twists and turns that might occur:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...oncede/616424/

This description of possible events between Election Day and Inaugural Day is the craziest:

Quote:

---

Suppose that caravans of Trump supporters, adorned in Second Amendment accessories, converge on big-city polling places on Election Day. They have come, they say, to investigate reports on social media of voter fraud. Counter­protesters arrive, fistfights break out, shots are fired, and voters flee or cannot reach the polls.

Then suppose the president declares an emergency. Federal personnel in battle dress, staged nearby in advance, move in to restore law and order and secure the balloting. Amid ongoing clashes, they stay to monitor the canvass. They close the streets that lead to the polls. They take custody of uncounted ballots in order to preserve evidence of fraud.

---

But it gets worse:

Quote:

---

December 8 is known as the “safe harbor” deadline for appointing the 538 men and women who make up the Electoral College. The electors do not meet until six days later, December 14, but each state must appoint them by the safe-harbor date to guarantee that Congress will accept their credentials. The controlling statute says that if “any controversy or contest” remains after that, then Congress will decide which electors, if any, may cast the state’s ballots for president.

We are accustomed to choosing electors by popular vote, but nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way. Article II provides that each state shall appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Since the late 19th century, every state has ceded the decision to its voters. Even so, the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that a state “can take back the power to appoint electors.” How and when a state might do so has not been tested for well over a century.

Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.

---

Not Trump may test this, he most certainly will. But it gets still worse:

Quote:

---

In Pennsylvania, three Republican leaders told me they had already discussed the direct appointment of electors among themselves, and one said he had discussed it with Trump’s national campaign.

“I’ve mentioned it to them, and I hope they’re thinking about it too,” Lawrence Tabas, the Pennsylvania Republican Party’s chairman, told me. “I just don’t think this is the right time for me to be discussing those strategies and approaches, but [direct appointment of electors] is one of the options. It is one of the available legal options set forth in the Constitution.” He added that everyone’s preference is to get a swift and accurate count. “If the process, though, is flawed, and has significant flaws, our public may lose faith and confidence” in the election’s integrity.

Jake Corman, the state’s Senate majority leader, preferred to change the subject, emphasizing that he hoped a clean vote count would produce a final tally on Election Night. “The longer it goes on, the more opinions and the more theories and the more conspiracies [are] created,” he told me. If controversy persists as the safe-harbor date nears, he allowed, the legislature will have no choice but to appoint electors. “We don’t want to go down that road, but we understand where the law takes us, and we’ll follow the law.”

---

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, there's this:

Quote:

---

In any of these scenarios, the Electoral College would convene on December 14 without a consensus on who had legitimate claims to cast the deciding votes.

Rival slates of electors could hold mirror-image meetings in Harris­burg, Lansing, Tallahassee, or Phoenix, casting the same electoral votes on opposite sides. Each slate would transmit its ballots, as the Constitution provides, “to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.” The next move would belong to Vice President Mike Pence.

This would be a genuine constitutional crisis, the first but not the last of the Interregnum. “Then we get thrown into a world where anything could happen,” Norm Ornstein says.

---

Now comes a real Orwellian moment:

Quote:

---

Two men are claiming the presidency. The next occasion to settle the matter is more than three weeks away.

January 6 comes just after the new Congress is sworn in. Control of the Senate will be crucial to the presidency now.

Pence, as president of the Senate, would hold in his hands two conflicting electoral certificates from each of several swing states. The Twelfth Amendment says only this about what happens next: “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.”

Note the passive voice. Who does the counting? Which certificates are counted?

The Trump team would take the position that the constitutional language leaves those questions to the vice president. This means that Pence has the unilateral power to announce his own reelection, and a second term for Trump. Democrats and legal scholars would denounce the self-dealing and point out that Congress filled the gaps in the Twelfth Amendment with the Electoral Count Act, which provides instructions for how to resolve this kind of dispute. The trouble with the instructions is that they are widely considered, in Foley’s words, to be “convoluted and impenetrable,” “confusing and ugly,” and “one of the strangest pieces of statutory language ever enacted by Congress.”

If the Interregnum is a contest in search of an umpire, it now has 535 of them, and a rule book that no one is sure how to read. The presiding officer is one of the players on the field.

One reading of the Electoral Count Act says that Congress must recognize the electors certified by the governor, who is a Democrat, unless the House and Senate agree otherwise. The House will not agree otherwise, and so Biden wins Pennsylvania and the White House. But Pence pounds his gavel and rules against this reading of the law, instead favoring another, which holds that Congress must discard both contested slates of electors. The garbled statute can plausibly be read either way.

With Pennsylvania’s electors disqualified, 518 electoral votes remain. If Biden holds a narrow lead among them, he again claims the presidency, because he has “the greatest number of votes,” as the Twelfth Amendment prescribes. But Republicans point out that the same amendment requires “a majority of the whole number of electors.” The whole number of electors, Pence rules, is 538, and Biden is short of the required 270.

On this argument, no one has attained the presidency, and the decision is thrown to the House, with one vote per state. If the current partisan balance holds, 26 out of 50 votes will be for Trump.

Before Pence can move on from Pennsylvania to Rhode Island, which is next on the alphabetical list as Congress counts the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expels all senators from the floor of her chamber. Now Pence is prevented from completing the count “in the presence of” the House, as the Constitution requires. Pelosi announces plans to stall indefinitely. If the count is still incomplete on Inauguration Day, the speaker herself will become acting president.

Pelosi prepares to be sworn in on January 20 unless Pence reverses his ruling and accepts that Biden won. Pence does not budge. He reconvenes the Senate in another venue, with House Republicans squeezing in, and purports to complete the count, making Trump the president-elect. Three people now have supportable claims to the Oval Office.

---

:jawdrop:

I kind of feel that sussing out every potential outcome is not particularly helpful, especially the more far-fetched ones.

Or maybe its just my own nerves telling me that, idk.

I think the point, as I see it, is that given the unhinged lunacy of this president, one has to be prepared for ANYTHING. If Fearless Leader or his campaign group pursues any of those "far-fetched" scenarios, you don't want to be scrambling on-the-fly with a response. Just be prepared. We all know Trump is a narcissistic individual who absolutely hates to lose. He will lie, he will cheat, he will fight a loss kicking and screaming. People underestimated him in 2016. Underestimating what he is capable of doing in 2020 would be violating a whole bunch of Sun-Tzu rules of engagement, not the least of which might be this one:

Quote:

---

“If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected .”

---

Did I just quote Sun-Tzu to a long time Orgah?

:laugh4:

I don't disagree that we need to be prepared. I have full faith that people in higher places are preparing for such scenarios with plans and lawyers and whatnot. But on my end, its best for my own mental health to not stay awake at night thinking of such possibilities. If it happens I am prepared to take to the streets. But me, personally, worrying about such things does not help anyone. There are people who are paid far more to handle it.

And FWIW I've been saying that the whole emphasis on mail-in ballots was bad and people should be encouraged to wait in lines at the polls with a mask and hand sanitizer. Mail-in ballots should only be for those who absolutely need it like the immunocompromised. Its the surest way to prevent many of those scenarios in the first place.

This long article describes in detail explicit Republican plans across the country to put in the fix engineer a favorable result before and after balloting and canvassing, including Republican legislatures pretextually declaring vote counts invalid and assigning slates of Republican electors to the Electoral College. [Samurai has posted about this in more depth just now but I want to re-emphasize it.]
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...edc32c19ef33b4

Quote:

---

In Pennsylvania, three Republican leaders told me they had already discussed the direct appointment of electors among themselves, and one said he had discussed it with Trump’s national campaign.

“I’ve mentioned it to them, and I hope they’re thinking about it too,” Lawrence Tabas, the Pennsylvania Republican Party’s chairman, told me. “I just don’t think this is the right time for me to be discussing those strategies and approaches, but [direct appointment of electors] is one of the options. It is one of the available legal options set forth in the Constitution.” He added that everyone’s preference is to get a swift and accurate count. “If the process, though, is flawed, and has significant flaws, our public may lose faith and confidence” in the election’s integrity.

Jake Corman, the state’s Senate majority leader, preferred to change the subject, emphasizing that he hoped a clean vote count would produce a final tally on Election Night. “The longer it goes on, the more opinions and the more theories and the more conspiracies [are] created,” he told me. If controversy persists as the safe-harbor date [December 8, when state-certified electoral slates are presumed as definitive] nears, he allowed, the legislature will have no choice but to appoint electors. “We don’t want to go down that road, but we understand where the law takes us, and we’ll follow the law.”

---

Trump again with the burst of perspicuity (after repeating on many occasions that he needs a 6th Republican justice confirmed immediately in order to ensure favorable rulings on electoral suits):
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1308902276187262978 [VIDEO]

Quote:

---

Reporter: "Win, lose or draw in this election, will you commit here today for a peaceful transferal of power after the election?"

President Trump: "We're going to have to see what happens."
"Get rid of the ballots and we'll have a very peaceful — there won't be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation."

---

It's not that he knows something we don't, we just have a hard time assimilating the overwhelming evidence on a visceral level.


Meanwhile, Florida's government has just proposed an unconstitutional criminalization of protest in the strongman image and has referred a criminal complaint to the FBI against Bloomberg for trying to pay the fines of disenfranchised ex-cons.
https://www.theledger.com/story/news...rs/5852737002/
https://twitter.com/TooMuchMe/status...49621041590276


I'm willing to grant some deference for the strategy throughout the Trump term, but I can't forgive Dem electeds if they don't try to build out parallel power structures in civil society and urban communities outside government and 'traditional' channels come 2021, win OR lose. It's equally necessary either way to, in Samurai's words, "get a bit more active in doing things to loosen," or bypass, Republicans' grip on national institutions. No more hedges and legacy liberal ideologies. This is a power struggle of maximal consequence, politics in the oldest register. The 150-year Cold War with the Confederacy has to be decided, to which end the People must be organized to apprehend its conduct. If Biden can rail against China as a threat to American power all throughout his campaign, he can pivot following his election, or even following Election Day, to do at least as much with regard to Republicans. It's time, no more hedging, no more coasting on personal reservations.

And :daisy: all Copperheads!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

So you'd rather give her a free pass because she faces hostile Republicans in the Senate and White House?

---

There is a space between giving a free pass and blaming Pelosi for not holding a gun to McConnell's and Trump's heads in order to implement <>. If there are specific tactical decisions to be criticized I'm all for hearing them, though in the course of learning more and more about the inside baseball and procedure of American politics the more I come to realize that very often it's difficult to make a strong judgement call on how optimal a certain play, a sequence, an act or inaction, was in the moment. A major example we're all familiar with being the debate between a "narrow" or broad impeachment. I favored the latter, and the former has probably only been an achievement for the historical record (I don't think it did much to radicalize the Democratic base in itself), yet at the same time I can't really be confident that my preferences would have been a great value-added if implemented.

One interesting criticism I've heard is that Pelosi and Schumer negotiated their emergency legislation (CARES Act) in March too effective at alleviating pain in the short term, without considering that the act would - proportionate to its initial success - exhaust future leverage over the Republicans/Trump to pass subsequent legislation (which Republicans have indeed not felt pressured to pursue since). But that's some heavy-ass armchair fourth-dimension quarterbacking.

Quote:

---

This probably doesn't lend itself to party unity:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dccc-...b01ebeef0ec3ae

---

I remember that. It was the beginning of the primary season at maximum acceleration. Sanders had just formally declared his candidacy!

This article looks like a relevant followup. I haven't read it but my initial impression is that the DCCC policy backfired?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Disagree. As someone who has seen the process first-hand, even getting a bill out of committee and on the House floor for a vote is a big deal. There have been literally thousands of bills introduced this legislative session, very few make it out of committee not because their ideas don't have merit, but because there are so many other things in the way that take precedence. The fact that a freshman congressperson got anything out of committee is a testament to her legislative skill, as it takes persistence and the building of relationships with her colleagues to move the ball forward.

---

Knowing a little about the process, I understand that committee chairs have a great deal of influence over the movement of bills as a veritable veto point, and that legislators as individuals and coalitions have to coordinate with them, or at least arrange to overcome them, to advance their agenda. But then that inherently biases the process on a personal and ideological level, which is not to my mind what a paramount standard by which to judge legislators should be, not least for permanently handicapping any definitional leftist. Look at how many of Underwood's actions were bipartisan or Republican-led. We would need to think much more carefully about this kind of change than I am at the moment, but I wonder if we shouldn't have one of our procedural reforms be that a given Congressperson shall have the right and privilege to bring one or more bills per session directly to the floor or to the top of the calendar (more unilateral and speedier than motions to discharge).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

So what actions could she take to influence the Senate? We have seen ample evidence that McConnell just doesnt give a flying fig. And the courts have ruled that the House can't actually enforce subpoenas without a law specifically saying they can, which hasnt been an issue until now since the norms of showing up after a subpoena havent been blatantly ignored like this before.

If anything needs to be redone on the congressional side are the rules around the powers of the Senate majority leader I think.

---

The Democrats could have attempted to arrest Barr or another ranking official with their minimalist native enforcement arm, not because it would have worked as a legislative tactic but because I can imagine its generation as a Media Event would have set the tone and perhaps even recommitted the caucus to further procedural extremism (this is all naturally debatable). On the other hand it's pie in the sky since it's one more "arrow in the quiver" that almost no Democrats can really privately stomach drawing, meaning there is never enough internal impetus toward implementation aside from the absence of any concrete resolution that the tactic could achieve. But it remains something that was available, and with a physical power that normatively-laden subpoenas were proven to lack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

I think the point, as I see it, is that given the unhinged lunacy of this president, one has to be prepared for ANYTHING. If Fearless Leader or his campaign group pursues any of those "far-fetched" scenarios, you don't want to be scrambling on-the-fly with a response. Just be prepared. We all know Trump is a narcissistic individual who absolutely hates to lose. He will lie, he will cheat, he will fight a loss kicking and screaming. People underestimated him in 2016. Underestimating what he is capable of doing in 2020 would be violating a whole bunch of Sun-Tzu rules of engagement, not the least of which might be this one:

---

Crucially we can almost lock Trump as a constant; do not underestimate what the Republicans are capable of. Almost every contention toward their deepening depravity has proven correct over time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I don't disagree that we need to be prepared. I have full faith that people in higher places are preparing for such scenarios with plans and lawyers and whatnot. But on my end, its best for my own mental health to not stay awake at night thinking of such possibilities. If it happens I am prepared to take to the streets. But me, personally, worrying about such things does not help anyone. There are people who are paid far more to handle it.

And FWIW I've been saying that the whole emphasis on mail-in ballots was bad and people should be encouraged to wait in lines at the polls with a mask and hand sanitizer. Mail-in ballots should only be for those who absolutely need it like the immunocompromised. Its the surest way to prevent many of those scenarios in the first place.

---

Masochism of catastrophe, doomerism, whatever you want to call it, is a siren. Want to talk about The Plot Againt America yet?

The modality preference gap continues to shrink, though even a 20-33 final split on mail voting (and it could still plausibly be 10-40) is dangerous.

Quote:

---

But on my end, its best for my own mental health to not stay awake at night thinking of such possibilities.

---

It's true that there is nothing any of us can do, once our vote is cast, to influence what happens after. However, I am a sucker for what-if scenarios, but a couple of those scenarios seem extremely plausible, and have actually been tried before. At the top of my list is delegate manipulation.

First there's this ruling:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/5384625002/

Quote:

---

In a pair of cases involving so-called faithless electors, the high court unanimously ruled that states have the constitutional power to force people elected to serve in the Electoral College to cast their official ballots for president in accordance with their state's popular vote. States, in other words, can prevent the electors from “going rogue” — as several did in 2016 by casting ballots for Colin Powell, John Kasich and Faith Spotted Eagle.

Thus, if the court has its way, there will be no risk of a faithless elector being a wild card in this year's election. Unfortunately, it is not so simple. The justices’ ruling permits states to prevent faithless electors, but it does not require that they do so.

In a pair of cases involving so-called faithless electors, the high court unanimously ruled that states have the constitutional power to force people elected to serve in the Electoral College to cast their official ballots for president in accordance with their state's popular vote. States, in other words, can prevent the electors from “going rogue” — as several did in 2016 by casting ballots for Colin Powell, John Kasich and Faith Spotted Eagle.

The court clearly was motivated by a desire to avoid destabilizing the system as much as possible. The justices announced as much at the time of oral argument. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for example, invoked “the avoid-chaos principle of judging,” which he took to mean that the court should not interpret the Constitution “to facilitate or create chaos” if there is a way to interpret it otherwise. Many states still allow 'going rogue'

Monday’s ruling followed through on that approach. Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, acknowledged that at the beginning of the republic there was some expectation that electors would exercise independent judgment. But she explained that the actual text of the Constitution does not compel that electors have this autonomy.

She also observed that the original expectation quickly disappeared and soon the contrary expectation developed: that electors would be loyal to their own political parties and thus conform their votes to their party’s presidential nominee. The court was entitled, she explained, to construe the Constitution in accordance with this subsequent practice and thereby have the system act as Americans now generally assume it does.

Only 32 states have laws attempting to bind electors to the state’s popular vote, and not all of them discount the deviant vote. And 18 states still have laws giving electors the freedom to vote independently if they so choose. Thus, absent change between now and November, there is the risk of chaos injecting itself into the system despite the court’s decision. As a practical matter, this particular risk is small. But it is not zero.

Suppose former Vice President Joe Biden wins the popular vote in enough states for an Electoral College victory, but only by counting vote-by-mail ballots — the kind of ballots that President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr have denounced (without substantiation) as inherently unreliable. Imagine, then, Trump and Barr persuading the legislatures of enough states to appoint electors who will vote for Trump, in opposition to the certified popular vote based on the counting of vote-by-mail ballots. That kind of dispute could reach Congress on Jan. 6, with lawmakers ill equipped to handle it because of inadequate existing procedures.

---

This is the one I can see Fearless Leader trying, considering how long he's been ranting against mail-in votes, and gotten his lap-dog Barr on board with this.

And a possible riposte by the Dems if they've got the cahonees:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...tions-outcome/

Quote:

---

Democrats could retaliate if they were willing to play what’s called “constitutional hardball” — stepping outside democratic norms without technically violating the Constitution’s limits, as when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) refused to convene a hearing to consider President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. That’s something some observers claim Democrats are typically reluctant to do. But if Democrats were to play tough, here’s a constitutional curveball they could throw.

Assuming the new House reelects Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as speaker, Pelosi could use the chamber’s power under the Constitution’s Article I, Section 5, to have her majority be the “judge” of contested elections to the House. The House could then seat enough Democrats to give Democrats control of a majority of state delegations before the House votes to select the president in January 2020.

Here’s how this might play out. As the judge of contested elections, the House can entertain any challenge to the election results at the beginning of its session (after choosing the speaker, customarily its first vote). Usually, the House refers these challenges to a committee to investigate. The committee recommends awarding the seat to one or another candidate, and the House votes on that recommendation. If enough Democratic challengers surfaced to allow the Democrats to claim a majority of delegations, then the attempt to manipulate the presidential election could be reversed.

If Republican state officials were to suggest they might withhold slates from the electoral college in November or December, Pelosi could threaten to reconstitute the delegations under Article I, Section 5 to preserve a genuine Biden victory, should one exist — thus signaling that Democrats would meet hardball with hardball. The option, in other words, could be useful even if she never has to use it.

---

@Monty

Quote:

---

There is a space between giving a free pass and blaming Pelosi for not holding a gun to McConnell's and Trump's heads in order to implement <>. If there are specific tactical decisions to be criticized I'm all for hearing them, though in the course of learning more and more about the inside baseball and procedure of American politics the more I come to realize that very often it's difficult to make a strong judgement call on how optimal a certain play, a sequence, an act or inaction, was in the moment.

---

Wouldn't disagree with any of that. Just sayin' that just because Trump has the majority of the GOP licking his boot heels, doesn't mean the Dems have to follow suit by inaction.

Quote:

---

do not underestimate what the Republicans are capable of. Almost every contention toward their deepening depravity has proven correct over time.

---

And I don't think the Dems are taking that lightly:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisond.../#1b0112aa1e00

I just heard Ginsburg speak for the first time. I was surprised that her voice quality and prosody of speech were almost the same as Pelosi's! Tell me you don't hear it.


OK, this is the bad stuff that you fear from Dems and I hope there's enough consensus in the caucus to set his ilk straight.

Quote:

---

From George Washington to George W. Bush, senators had used the filibuster against 68 presidential nominees. From Washington to Bush, that entire period, 68 filibusters of presidential nominees. During President Obama’s first five years, Republican senators, led by Mitch McConnell, used it against 79 nominees. In five years of a brand new president, they used the filibuster more times than in our history going back to George Washington.

The obstruction was relentless, Madame President, and it finally led Senate Democrats to change the rules in 2013 with a so-called “nuclear option,” allowing us to confirm judicial nominees -- except for the Supreme Court and other executive appointments -- with 51 votes instead of 60 votes. I’m sorry about that vote. I’ve apologized on this floor before, about that vote. It has led us, partly, to where we are today.

---

Sad, because Bennett (former 2020 Dem presidential primary candidate on a conservative platform) has been relatively good on fiscal support in the recession.


Most importantly:

Quote:

---

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy told a federal court that hundreds of high-speed mail sorting machines he ordered removed cannot be returned to service because they were stripped for parts.

DeJoy and the U.S.Postal Service presented the excuse in a response filed Wednesday to a nationwide order issued by U.S. District Judge Stanley Bastian in Yakima, Washington, last week demanding the return of some 700 machines that had been taken out of service.

“Dismantled machines ‘are generally dissembled for their usable parts, with such parts being removed to maintain or enhance other machines,’” DeJoy, a loyalist and major contributor to President Donald Trump’s campaign, stated in his response. “It is therefore not possible to return such machines to service.”

But witnesses reported that many of the expensive machines were quickly dismantled and tossed into dumpsters as scrap. The injunction noted that 72% of the ripped out machines were in counties Hillary Clinton won in the 2016 presidential election.

---

Quote:

---

Even as the importance of timely mail delivery heightens ahead of the election, DeJoy several weeks ago ordered the removal of the sorting machines and hundreds of letter-collection boxes. He also ordered an end to overtime for postal workers and extended delivery time.

The Postal Service then sent letters to 47 states that it could no longer guarantee that mail-in ballots would be delivered on time.

---

Reminder that DeJoy, following Congressional and media alarm and scrutiny of his practices in August, promised to not screw with the Postal Service until after the election.

This universe is too basic for pop culture. :wall:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFs5kbx8qT8

Right, so Biden often wasn't effective in pursuing Trump's flaws. He didn't make him look weak, which is what matters. Let him control the narrative too often. This debate won't have an impact.

Maybe, but I will say that it's hard to do that when the moderator was completely ineffective and Trump is just interrupting and shouting over everyone. :daisy: was embarrassing. I know people like to think of Wallace as one of the few "decent" Fox News people but he's only a bit less bad.

If anything is remembered from this debate it will be that Trump encouraged his voters to go to the polls and "watch the votes."

If we survive election day without violence at a polling place I think it would be a miracle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Maybe, but I will say that it's hard to do that when the moderator was completely ineffective and Trump is just interrupting and shouting over everyone. :daisy: was embarrassing. I know people like to think of Wallace as one of the few "decent" Fox News people but he's only a bit less bad.

If anything is remembered from this debate it will be that Trump encouraged his voters to go to the polls and "watch the votes."

If we survive election day without violence at a polling place I think it would be a miracle.

---

Wallace was surprisingly fair IMO. There's no way to moderate Trump effectively unless you gonzo full-expletive in his face, and you wouldn't hope for that even from the roughest Democratic nominee let alone a mod.

Some polling:

Monmouth: 44% of Americans not bothered by Trump's refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.
Yougov: 30% of Americans believe there will be a peaceful transfer of power in a contested election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Wallace was surprisingly fair IMO. There's no way to moderate Trump effectively unless you gonzo full-expletive in his face, and you wouldn't hope for that even from the roughest Democratic nominee let alone a mod.

---

But thats the core of the issue though. Trump is a bully. Coddling a bully gets you nowhere. I think Philippe Reines had a great quote about trying to debate Trump: "It's like Yo-Yo Ma trying to perform at Carnegie Hall when there's a guy with an air horn 10 feet away."

Gotta take away his airhorn if you want it to be an actual debate.

Edit: the second debate is in the town hall format which absolutely plays to Biden's strengths (empathy and personal connection). I think that one would go far better for Biden.

Quote:

---

Some polling:

Monmouth: 44% of Americans not bothered by Trump's refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.
Yougov: 30% of Americans believe there will be a peaceful transfer of power in a contested election.

---

I suppose I shouldnt be surprised how seemingly few Americans are concerned about this.

Maybe I'm speaking as a New Yorker, but sometimes I feel like this is the kind of register in which to address Trump:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLcNStHTDjM

But no one is gonna do it, and to do it well you need experience or acculturation on top of the right personality. By all means Trump has dipped into this register many a time in his life behind closed doors...

In the end a proper "debate" of the sort we elevate in American discourse is impossible to hold with Trump as a participant, because you're putting humans against incontinent pigeons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I suppose I shouldnt be surprised how seemingly few Americans are concerned about this.

---

Second poll implies a lot of concern, and 44% in the first poll is basically Trump's total support.

First impressions:

Trump never once looked at the camera to address the American people. Biden constantly did so. I think that makes a subliminal impact.

Trump said literally nothing about what he plans for the next four years if re-elected. Biden didn't necessarily do a great job of laying out his plans, but at least he had them.

In order to make up ground with the "Undecided", Trump had to essentially destroy Biden, to which he failed, IMHO. Biden has never been known as a great debater, but he at least held his own. Should he have been more aggressive? Yes. OTOH, I have the feeling that people (except Trump's hardcore base) are tired of the loud-mouthed bully that simply likes to wield the big stick.

And the most ominous part came at the end. When Wallace asked Trump to denounce white supremacy, his answer--- "be on standby". You can guarantee there will be violence.....lots of violence if/when he loses the election.

Dave Wasserman had the brilliant idea of mods just cutting off the mic of the candidate whose turn is pending.

Why has that never been tried before?

Has it been tried before?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Dave Wasserman had the brilliant idea of mods just cutting off the mic of the candidate whose turn is pending.

Why has that never been tried before?

Has it been tried before?

---

I think it has, just not for a Trump debate I dont think. Yang claimed his mic got cut off in one debate but the moderators denied it.

But for this debate, the issue is that it was a Fox News hosted debate. Do you think any of them, even Wallace, would dare cut off his mic? I guess we will see if the other moderators have more guts to do so.

Some more new polling:

Quote:

---

YouGov/CBS
Tonight Debate made you think...

Biden:
Better of him 38% (+6)
Worse of him 32%
.
Trump:
Better of him 24% (-18)
Worse of him 42%

---

The whole thing was painful to watch. Wallace lost any semblance of control, and one the best lines was:

Biden: “I can’t remember everything he was ranting about.”

Wallace: “I’m having trouble myself.”

I pity Steve Scully, and especially Kristen Welker because, as a woman, she will be wholly dismissed by Trump.

Quote:

---

Dave Wasserman had the brilliant idea of mods just cutting off the mic of the candidate whose turn is pending.

---

Something will need to be done, as I don't think people want to watch another "dumpster fire on top of Burning Tire Mountain during an eruption of Mount Shitshow."

This is the way Trump does debates. If you cut off his microphone he will walk closer to the other mic' and raise his voice.

His base loves this -- they view it as someone finally not letting the libs get away with it.

We will see if this has any impact on the last few undecideds.

After watching the rerun (painfully), there were several places where Biden could've scored big, IMHO.

On the pandemic, I would've started with the decision to suppress it's existence...lying to the American public. Then pushing the narrative that it was all a hoax designed to threaten him personally. Then, the pretense that it will all disappear "like a miracle". Then absolving himself of all responsibility, pushing the response onto each state, and then actively hindering their response (especially 'Blue States') by buying up international supplies before states could procure them, and doling them out to states that were 'nice to me'. Then came the touting of questionable 'cures' even to the point of absurdly suggesting using bleach internally. The whole narrative from the very beginning had not a shred of concern for the people he's supposed to lead, but of saving himself from criticism in the face of an ever spreading pandemic.

A 'War President' as Trump has touted himself, must have a plan. No good general ever goes into battle without a plan. Eight months into this pandemic, there is still no national plan to combat the virus. Every insistence to 'open it up' has led to a fresh round of infections...whack-a-mole is the presidents plan.

On the vaccine, when Trump said his experts are wrong, I would've had a simple question. "Mr. President, what are your medical credentials? A degree in epidemiology? One in micro-biology? A medical degree of any kind? Oh, that's right, your degree is in showmanship, from the school of The Apprentice!"

On climate change, and particularly the wild fires in California, when Trump went into his diatribe about cleaning the forest floor, Biden should have reminded him that almost 60% of the forest land in California is federally owned, so perhaps he should start handing out rakes to Department of Agriculture employees and get them to work raking leaves.

Biden should've pointed out that being audited by the IRS does not preclude Trump from releasing his taxes. There is no law on the books that says tax returns have to be held in confidentiality during an audit. Biden did, however, call for Trump to prove the NYT wrong by releasing those tax returns.

There were other places he could have landed good body blows, but I can't bring myself to review that dumpster fire more than once:no:

Anyway, Joe might have held his own, but he could have done a lot more, IMHO.....:shrug:

I agree, Biden definitely won, but his performance wasn't great. That being said, the cult didn't disappoint. According to the official narrative, asking Trump to denounce white supremacists was a trap. An particularly insidious one. However, there is no unanimous conclusion about whether the Commander-in-Chief fell in it or masterfully evaded it.

Quote:

---

However, there is no unanimous conclusion about whether the Commander-in-Chief fell in it or masterfully evaded it.

---

I don't think it's a matter of falling for it or evading it. The fact that you have a sitting president who refuses to come out against radical right-wingers, despite the DHS stating in recent drafts that white supremacists pose a greater domestic threat than Islamic terrorists, is scary. But as anyone who has followed his presidency the last 3 1/2 years, his favorable view on these groups is nothing new.

On a different note, this could be funny if it wasn't so sad:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rump-us-debate

Except Canadians want nothing to do with Americans except as a trading partner.....:quiet:

More journalists should do this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJmVwPo9COc

Kudos to Jake Tapper:2thumbsup:

All you need to know about the debates.
Attachment 23969

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

All you need to know about the debates.
Attachment 23969

---

That's what it devolved to, but it didn't have to be that way. Biden clearly tried to lay out some plans and have an actual debate, while Trump just used his usual aggression. This was Trump's time to shine, but all he did was act like he usually does.

"Beautiful", "China", "fake news". Same as usual.

Trump looks and sounds shockingly good here.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...58400352972800 [VIDEO]

A very helpful cheat-sheet for following the elections. Don't forget to save it.

Attachment 23999

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Trump looks and sounds shockingly good here.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...58400352972800 [VIDEO]

---

Didnt Boris Johnson also seem fine for a while before he got sent to the ICU?

Also if you look at 1:03 in this video he appears to stifle a cough, or it was edited out. hard to tell and I trust nothing that's coming out of the WH. I mean they even lied about the timing of the photos they took.

Edit: its even worse: Trump's doctor says he didn't admit yesterday that Trump was put on oxygen because he was trying to be publicly upbeat. "I didn't want to give any information that might steer the illness in another direction."
Which makes zero sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Didnt Boris Johnson also seem fine for a while before he got sent to the ICU?

Also if you look at 1:03 in this video he appears to stifle a cough, or it was edited out. hard to tell and I trust nothing that's coming out of the WH. I mean they even lied about the timing of the photos they took.

Edit: its even worse: Trump's doctor says he didn't admit yesterday that Trump was put on oxygen because he was trying to be publicly upbeat. "I didn't want to give any information that might steer the illness in another direction."
Which makes zero sense.

---

Oh my god, I thought I was posting the video you just posted. I must have scrolled too far and grabbed the link without looking. :wall:

But Trump does look and sound like a "normal person" in that scene. Maybe I'm just too inclined to think well of people.

With Covid and how it plays out, there are good days and bad days so I dont think a video or two are indicative of his overall condition.

More info from the briefing:

Quote:

---

a) Trump's fever was "high"
b) Trump's lung scans show "expected findings," unclear what that means
c) Trump is on a steroid the WHO recommends only for "severe and critical" COVID cases and
d) Trump's oxygen levels dropped again Saturday

---

As Maggie Haberman points out, did they overreact and give him the steroid because he is POTUS or did they actually need to use it? I dont think we will ever get a real answer about it, and I would be shocked if he is released on Monday as they are claiming.

The more troubling thing is that Republicans are still skeptical about mask usage. One would think that after their figurehead gets Covid they would be more accepting of mask usage but nope. And yet they wonder why the virus seems to be primarily affecting Republican politicians and not Democrats. :dizzy2:

I get it. Fearless Leader is POTUS, and because he is infected with a potentially life threatening disease, that deserves attention. But just as his entire career has been one "spin-doctor" production after another, this current media circus is as boring as it is predictable. What's not being mentioned often enough is that more than likely, Trump knew he had COVID-19 sometime mid-Wednesday, just hours after the presidential debate. And yet----he knowingly attended not just one but two fundraisers, plus a rally, plus an Air Force One flight, plus several staff meetings, all without masks.

In other words, even after contracting COVID-19, he continued his 'I could care less' attitude towards the disease. I realize, that his opponents can't just come out and say "Serves him right" although I'd bet the farm that's what they are thinking. But I have no such PC convictions. Serves him right. [Monty is still right: "You can't BS a virus"]~:smoking:

Quote:

---

And yet they wonder why the virus seems to be primarily affecting Republican politicians and not Democrats.

---

Like this nonsense?

https://www.reddit.com/r/CovIdiots/c...another_level/

Quote:

---

Former Republican congressional candidate-turned-Newsmax commentator DeAnna Lorraine floated the idea that a someone on the left deliberately infected Trump.

"I’m just going to say what we’re all thinking. Trump was fine until the debate, where they set up microphones & podiums for him. Incubation period is usually 2-3 days. He tests positive a couple of days after the debate. I put nothing past the left. NOTHING," Lorraine tweeted.

She added: "Does anyone else find it odd that no prominent Democrats have had the virus but the list of Republicans goes on and on?"

---

[And just to get out my Katie Porter whiteboard on this stupidity: if Trump was infected by the Dems at the debate, he wouldn't have begun showing symptoms until Thursday or Friday morning at the very earliest. His symptoms were evident by the middle of Wednesday, which means his infection happened several days earlier----Rose Garden gathering, anyone?]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

In other words, even after contracting COVID-19, he continued his 'I could care less' attitude towards the disease. I realize, that his opponents can't just come out and say "Serves him right" although I'd bet the farm that's what they are thinking. But I have no such PC convictions. Serves him right.~:smoking:

---

Relevant:

Attachment 24000

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

With Covid and how it plays out, there are good days and bad days so I dont think a video or two are indicative of his overall condition.

More info from the briefing:


As Maggie Haberman points out, did they overreact and give him the steroid because he is POTUS or did they actually need to use it? I dont think we will ever get a real answer about it, and I would be shocked if he is released on Monday as they are claiming.

The more troubling thing is that Republicans are still skeptical about mask usage. One would think that after their figurehead gets Covid they would be more accepting of mask usage but nope. And yet they wonder why the virus seems to be primarily affecting Republican politicians and not Democrats. :dizzy2:

---

Controversial as it may be, what I'm trying to convey is that Trump in that (longer) video sounds nice, gracious, for once in his life.

As for masks, the Republican treasurer of Wisconsin said: “If the leader of the free world can get this, I think it’s kind of silly for the rest of us to pretend a $3 handkerchief from Walmart is going to protect us."

'If the leader of the free world could burn his wittle fingah by touching the stove, it's kind of silly for the rest of us to pretend a $3 oven mitt from Walmart is going to protect us. And have you noticed how all these Republicans just turned up with burns, but conspicuously few Democrats? Now I'm not saying it was aliens...'

Notice also that this is the same kind of format of putative futility and absurdity the Right adopts toward all manner of ideas it doesn't like, such as the possibility that humans could have an effect on the climate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

I get it. Fearless Leader is POTUS, and because he is infected with a potentially life threatening disease, that deserves attention. But just as his entire career has been one "spin-doctor" production after another, this current media circus is as boring as it is predictable. What's not being mentioned often enough is that more than likely, Trump knew he had COVID-19 sometime mid-Wednesday, just hours after the presidential debate. And yet----he knowingly attended not just one but two fundraisers, plus a rally, plus an Air Force One flight, plus several staff meetings, all without masks.

---

I mentioned it as a limiter on our sympathy for his position, but as with so many other things it's beyond Trump: it's the Republican way. Republican lawmakers in Congress and the states have on many occasions maliciously - or minimally negligently - exposed their colleagues to the virus.

If the Amy Barrett reception turns out to have been a superspreader event that incapacitates the POTUS and neutralizes the Senate Republican majority needed to confirm her, that would certainly be good writing for a change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

[Ed. From 9/6/20] Long live King Prospero in his White Palace.

---

https://i.imgur.com/07XuGbk.jpg

Quote:

---

I mentioned it as a limiter on our sympathy for his position, but as with so many other things it's beyond Trump: it's the Republican way. Republican lawmakers in Congress and the states have on many occasions maliciously - or minimally negligently - exposed their colleagues to the virus.

---

I would put that the other way around---it's beyond the Republicans, it's the Trump way. If Fearless Leader had scared the Be-Jezus out of everyone back when he was interviewing with Woodward, much of this Covid Idiocy doesn't happen. The GOP has long since surrendered any semblance of being it's own conservative entity, and simply licks Trump's boot-heels for whatever he says or wants. If he had come out for wearing a mask and social distancing from the start, the GOP would've fell into line.

Is there any other evidence needed that this man deserves absolutely no sympathy for having COVID-19?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...isit-criticism

Quote:

---

James Phillips, doctor of emergency medicine at George Washington University, who is an attending physician at Walter Reed, called the stunt “insanity”.

“Every single person in the vehicle during that completely unnecessary Presidential ‘drive-by’ just now has to be quarantined for 14 days. They might get sick. They may die,” he wrote in a tweet.

“For political theater. Commanded by Trump to put their lives at risk for theater. This is insanity.”

Trump signalled his intention to visit his flag-waving supporters in a video tweet of his own, released only moments before a cavalcade of black SUVs drove through the gates of the Maryland medical center. Trump was seen waving animatedly through a fully-closed window, before the vehicles doubled back into the hospital grounds.

“This is the real school,” Trump said in the video, describing his experience with Covid-19, and his second full day at Walter Reed after being admitted on Friday. “I get it and understand it. [It is] a very interesting thing and I’m going to be letting you know about it.”

---

No, Mr. President, you don't "get it", and neither do you "understand it". But your personal bodyguards do:

Quote:

---

Secret Service agents expressed their anger and frustration to colleagues and friends Friday, saying that the president’s actions have repeatedly put them at risk. “He’s never cared about us,” one agent told a confidant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the internal reaction.

Former Secret Service agents said it was unheard of for agents to openly complain about their president but that some currently in the ranks had become convinced during the pandemic that Trump was willing to put his protectors in harm’s way.

Agents who work in field offices around the country complained that since late August, they are no longer being tested when they return home from working at a rally for the president.

“This administration doesn’t care about the Secret Service,” one current agent relayed in an internal discussion group. “It’s so obvious.”

---

Lends further weight to the "losers and suckers" commentary...

:no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

Is there any other evidence needed that this man deserves absolutely no sympathy for having COVID-19?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...isit-criticism



No, Mr. President, you don't "get it", and neither do you "understand it". But your personal bodyguards do:



Lends further weight to the "losers and suckers" commentary...

:no:

---

Did the Service somehow believe that their status in protecting him would have him caring about them differently? He cares about them no less than he cares about the rest of us and no more. We are all merely "extras" in the only "show" that he frets about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

I would put that the other way around---it's beyond the Republicans, it's the Trump way. If Fearless Leader had scared the Be-Jezus out of everyone back when he was interviewing with Woodward, much of this Covid Idiocy doesn't happen. The GOP has long since surrendered any semblance of being it's own conservative entity, and simply licks Trump's boot-heels for whatever he says or wants. If he had come out for wearing a mask and social distancing from the start, the GOP would've fell into line.

---

I don't think it is that one way.

The "religious right" get their Federal Judges. They know he's dreadful but they're life appointments
The very rich have got their tax breaks. Sure, he's scum but money is money.
The white racists have got it as good as they'll ever get it. Yeah he has a long history of being a racist so they can see a kindred spirit.
The second amendment-maxers have broadly not had any issues with gun control so they're happy.
Individuals in the Senate know what the polls say about how their constituents will vote. And therefore will play to keep their seat. The only "rebels" are from states that are Republican but don't like the President


Each group above might love, despise or be indifferent to Dopey Donnie and don't have to agree with each other either. But they all are very aware that their interests are closest to him than anyone else.

All the above groups probably in the main don't have a fixed view on the whole mask / COVID thing. And so probably would have followed his lead.

~:smoking:

We are lucky that Trump is too stupid and narcissistic to realize that excessively alienating the Armed Forces, state intelligence, and one's own quasi-Praetorians is not conducive to securing one's enduring power in office.

The only security forces Trump might be popular with are disparate swathes of local police - over whom Trump has no jurisdiction - and the Department of Homeland Security (e.g. ICE) jackboots, of whom there are only thousands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The second amendment-maxers have broadly not had any issues with gun control so they're happy.

---

Hehehehehe

Quote:

---

“I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time,” Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on school safety and gun violence.

“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” Trump said.

---

<laughtears.emoji>

Imagine those words attributed to Obama - who didn't really take any action, such as was within executive authority, against guns.

Quote:

---

Each group above might love, despise or be indifferent to Dopey Donnie and don't have to agree with each other either. But they all are very aware that their interests are closest to him than anyone else.

---

I would say that the pre-existing (since at least Newt Gingrich's Contract with America) Republican consensus that Democrats are illegitimate socialists, the New Deal must be retrenched, wealth and power are more important than country and democracy, etc. has certainly not diminished under Trump. As we can see. Don't underestimate the depth of fanaticism or delusion among Republican officials, not necessarily for Trump's own sake but for the overlapping worldview. Which worldview will persist even if Republicans try to flush Trump down the memory hole next year.

Interesting polling coming out of Michigan regarding demographic movement-

"There has been a major shift among voters over the age of 65 towards Joe Biden. Older voters now support Biden over Trump by a margin of 59.1%-29.2% -- a nearly 30-point lead for Joe Biden. Biden led senior voters by 7.5% in the Post-Convention survey. Senior voters have shifted by 22 points since early September."

Fascinating. Would not have thought the debate would impact that much. Also crucial since senior citizens are one of the more reliable voting groups.

On another topic, a friend of mine brought this up to me: what happens if Covid takes its toll on Trump and he dies right before the election, or otherwise incapacitated? And With less than a month to go, anything can happen. I guess Pence would take his spot but Im not sure how it would really impact the race. Would the trumpists be turned off because their leader is gone or would they be driven even more to "avenge" him? I could see some violence happening if he dies, as I've seen some trumpists say that they think the Dems purposely infected Trump with Covid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

Interesting polling coming out of Michigan regarding demographic movement-

"There has been a major shift among voters over the age of 65 towards Joe Biden. Older voters now support Biden over Trump by a margin of 59.1%-29.2% -- a nearly 30-point lead for Joe Biden. Biden led senior voters by 7.5% in the Post-Convention survey. Senior voters have shifted by 22 points since early September."

Fascinating. Would not have thought the debate would impact that much. Also crucial since senior citizens are one of the more reliable voting groups.

On another topic, a friend of mine brought this up to me: what happens if Covid takes its toll on Trump and he dies right before the election, or otherwise incapacitated? And With less than a month to go, anything can happen. I guess Pence would take his spot but Im not sure how it would really impact the race. Would the trumpists be turned off because their leader is gone or would they be driven even more to "avenge" him? I could see some violence happening if he dies, as I've seen some trumpists say that they think the Dems purposely infected Trump with Covid.

---

Right-wing terrorists groups would get violent. They just lost their figurehead. Turnout would collapse at the polls since Trump is the Republican party and there is no one who could fill in the enthusiasm gap.
It's not really a hot take to say that when the leader dies, voters get disillusioned.

Quote:

---

All the above groups probably in the main don't have a fixed view on the whole mask / COVID thing. And so probably would have followed his lead.

---

And they've just been "told" that even if you have contracted COVID-19, and while still contagious, it's ok to “Don’t be afraid of Covid. Don’t let it dominate your life.” Sez the man who's received world-class health care, while at the same time trying to repeal the health care for millions of Americans.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...health-empathy

Quote:

---

Even if we don’t believe in science, even if we don’t believe in the virus, even if don’t believe in the efficacy of wearing masks, we might, it seems to me, have adopted some version of Pascal’s famous wager. Though the existence of God cannot be definitively proven, posited the 17th-century philosopher, it would be wise to assume and behave as if God does exist: an attitude with no downside (except the fear of sin) and a host of likely benefits (heaven). Regardless of our stance on the course and prevention of the pandemic, why not take the gamble: wear a mask, keep our distance – and protect the lives of other people? But this response presupposes that we care about the lives of other people.

We’d like to believe that suffering instructs and ennobles; that our grief, fear and pain increases our sympathy for the grief, fear and pain of others. But again, Donald Trump seems to be ineducable, impervious to shame, guilt, or any sense of personal responsibility, unaffected by anything except vanity, selfishness and reckless self-regard. Certainly, the experience of having his blood oxygen level drop so low that supplemental oxygen was required must have been alarming, and yet the president continues to believe that bluster is the best medicine.

Unaffected by his illness, undaunted by his own experience, the president’s insistence on putting his own bombastic self-display above the welfare of others reached a new low on Sunday, when he decided to order up in his armor-plated, hermetically sealed SUV and be driven past his supporters outside the hospital, to “pay a little surprise to some of the great patriots we have out on the street”.

Does Trump care? Apparently not. Nothing – not illness, not danger, not the prospect of death – can diminish his posturing, his hubris, his sense of invincibility, his unconscionable lack of concern for others. Waving and smiling, somewhat wanly, at his fans, he cemented his position as – according to a recent study – the number one source of misinformation about the dangers of the virus. And that may be yet another way in which he and his supporters are super-spreaders, discrediting science, widely circulating the idea that we have absolutely no responsibility for the life and safety of our fellow humans and for the planet on which we live – an attitude that may prove to be even more dangerous, more catastrophic the deadliest plague.

---

Being that it's too early to say whether Trump lives or dies, it's also probably too early for the Dems to hammer all of this home, despite the fact that had roles been reversed with Biden, he'd have been chirping the whole time about how weak Biden was. If he lives, the Dems better be using a five pound ball peen hammer to illustrate this unconscionable behavior.

270 to win is now shifted toward Biden. However, a number of the polls that include third party candidates are within the margin of error, including PA, which they list as leans Biden. Trafalgar group consistently shows the tightest numbers, though these numbers have slipped over the last week.

Quote:

---

Inside Trumpworld, the shock of Trump’s hospitalization is giving way to despair about his prospects in the upcoming election. “They all know it’s over,” a Republican close to the campaign said. “This is spiraling out of control,” a former West Wing official said. Some Trump allies are entertaining conspiracy theories that the White House outbreak was caused by someone with political motives. “It’s weird that all these Republicans are getting it,” a prominent Republican told me. “I don’t know what the fuck is going on. But one thing I’ve learned is: when something major happens thirty days before an election, it usually has to do with the election.” (There is no evidence for this wild claim).

Meanwhile, America’s closest allies are entertaining wild scenarios as well. An outside White House adviser told me that a high-level government official from a G-7 country asked him if Trump would try to appoint Ivanka president instead of Mike Pence. “He’s broken every norm so far, so they think anything is possible,” the source said.

---

There's a reason Republican partisans and electeds in particular reject the science of epidemiology to the degree that they behave like it's what they believe, even when it puts themselves at risk and Trump isn't even looking: they believe it.

Orwellian doublethink is almost a definitional product and feature of conservative evangelical faith, but it's not strictly associated with the "[religious] faith" element of it. See:

Federalist: How Strong Women Like Amy Coney Barrett Submit To Their Husbands With Joy (the mind boggles at the allusions)
Trump campaign: Trump campaign attacks Joe Biden for not having COVID-19 ("He has experience now fighting the coronavirus as an individual. Those firsthand experiences — Joe Biden, he doesn't have those.")
Fox: Fox host: Trump “took the risk, he got the virus," because “he was doing it for us” (Greg Gutfeld: “He was going to walk out there on that battlefield with you, and not sit somewhere in a basement”)

Republican voters continue to believe that Republican politicians intend to create/protect health insurance protections for people with pre-existing conditions (as Obamacare did), despite it being a formal and explicit and frequently-attempted policy plank of the Republican Party since 2010 - now Trump admin - to eliminate these protections.


@ samurai: I take your point that on an issue without pre-existing political salience, such as public health protocols, Trump's signalling could set the tone for tens of millions one way or another. However, don't forget the fifth column that is conservative media here. We know Fox and the like experimented with a variety of coverage styles in March, including advocacy for masks and shutdowns, but in the end what we have are lethal propaganda mills that refine and amplify the President's emotional message far better than he could ever articulate.


I guess I'll tune in to tomorrow's debate, just because it is arguably worthwhile to watch our very plausible 2024 candidate perform. I hope she plays a similar role to Biden in 2012 vs. Paul Ryan.

GET HIS ASS HARRIS. If the country can take a woman Veep/President (OK, fine, debatable), then it can take a woman GETTING HIS ASS.*

*Re: Observations that a woman in Biden's position would have received disapprobation for telling Trump to "shut up" (Biden received a notable, in some polls outstanding, boost in the polls for his debate showing). If the observation is true, it's outrageous BS that sets my teeth on edge. Now we have an excellent opportunity to test the case, and hopefully far beyond.

(To be completely sober-minded about it, the Biden campaign will probably have decided from the past experience that sheepish restraint serves their brand better than loosing the attack dog would. So I don't honestly think my preferences will be met in the VP debate, possibly for good reason, but on some level it's a darn shame.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

270 to win is now shifted toward Biden. However, a number of the polls that include third party candidates are within the margin of error, including PA, which they list as leans Biden. Trafalgar group consistently shows the tightest numbers, though these numbers have slipped over the last week.

---

More reliable polls have shown results like Biden +14 nationally, +8-11 among likely voters in Pennsylvania, and at a supermajority among the +65 demographic. Much of this movement has been since September, or even since the debate.

It really does feel like we're going to get that landslide most of us have been anticipating since at least the beginning of 2020. Even with all the opposition's active measures, a 54-44 blowout looks quite plausible (and there's no turning those numbers around in the EC).

I can't stress this enough: Trump is almost as bad at politics as he is at business.

Quote:

---

Republican voters continue to believe that Republican politicians intend to create/protect health insurance protections for people with pre-existing conditions (as Obamacare did), despite it being a formal and explicit and frequently-attempted policy plank of the Republican Party since 2010 - now Trump admin - to eliminate these protections.

---

What many GOP supporters, outside of the ultra-conservative evangelicals, don't realize is that their own party could care less about them. You have this abject moron stating that "[...] ill or medically infirm senators [will be] wheeled in to cast critical votes on the Senate floor." [referring to the confirmation vote for Amy Coney Barrett]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/to.../05/id/990458/

Combine that with Fearless Leader just cancelling COVID stimulus talks until after the election, and voila, the Republicans just flipped the bird to a large proportion of their constituency. He just gave the Dems a great big target to use.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...mulus-election

Are you kidding me?:inquisitive:

I would not be surprised at a 55 to 42 vote in the popular vote.

The issue is that cadre of 6-7 swing states. Most/all of them show Biden with a lead of 3-7% but the margins of error vary and one or two feature a number of undecideds.

To be fair, 2016 featured far more undecideds at this juncture, Trump had no record to hang around his neck, and nobody hates Biden as they do H. Clinton.

I am hopeful -- but guarded.


Sadly, I do NOT see the GOP losing 40 house seats, 10 senate seats, and an extra third of the governerships. Which I would LIKE to see so that the GOP is forced to reboot.

Quote:

---

The issue is that cadre of 6-7 swing states. Most/all of them show Biden with a lead of 3-7% but the margins of error vary and one or two feature a number of undecideds.

---

Might as well add my 2cents to what all the talking heads are saying----I think Biden wins the popular vote by a significantly larger proportion than Hillary did in 2016. The BIG question is how that majority vote is distributed. I also think there will be at least one major surprise in how a state votes. Texas, S. Carolina, and Iowa are scrambling to suppress voting to try and insure that surprise doesn't happen in their state. I'd be stunned if Texas or S. Carolina flipped. It'd be all over if either one did. Iowa is a toss-up, which is why the Dept. of Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue is busy handing out last-minute cash to farmers:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...culture-425661

His only hope is that several states will be in the "too close to call" category, whereupon he unleashes his lap dog Barr to stop those states from counting remaining ballots, and/or appealing to Republican state legislatures to declare their electoral votes for him. He's already made the statement that he fully expects the election process to end up in SCOTUS, where he expects they rule in his favor.

Quote:

---

Sadly, I do NOT see the GOP losing 40 house seats, 10 senate seats, and an extra third of the governerships. Which I would LIKE to see so that the GOP is forced to reboot.

---

I don't either, but I suspect the GOP carnage could be significant...:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Sadly, I do NOT see the GOP losing 40 house seats, 10 senate seats, and an extra third of the governerships. Which I would LIKE to see so that the GOP is forced to reboot.

---

So, I've been saying this for a few months now both online and off. The current institutional resilience of the GOP is a house of cards, although most states do not document voter registration by party, the ones that do show give some surprising results.
https://centerforpolitics.org/crysta...ans-are-ahead/

North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and even Louisiana have more registered Democrats than Republicans and yet the first two are considered competitive all things being equal and Louisiana is more Red than Blue for statewide elections.
Nationally we know there is a deepening gap of about 2-3% possibly even 5% now between identified Democrats and Republicans. Yet this does not translate in the House of Reps where Republicans are still competitive and have held control more often than not for the past 30 years.

Even in local politics, let's take a look at Ventura County in California since I have commented on the CA-25 race that has been a Republican stronghold with the exception of Katie Hill in 2018. The portion of CA-25 which is located in Ventura county consistently leans more Republican in outcome than the section which resides in Los Angeles County proper. Yet, here are the stats from the Ventura County Clerk-Recorder:
Registered Voters as of 10/07/20

• REP: 142,728
• DEM: 208,837
• NonPartisan: 106,816
• Other: 31,410
• Total 489,791

As we can see there is a 60,000 lead for Dems in the county which makes a 50/50 split among the Non-Partisan voters a default Dem blowout. Now, this might be because the section of Ventura county in CA-25 might be much more Red than the county as a whole (this is actually partially true), but the effect is not strong enough to suggest that the district should be non-competitive. In fact, the district voted for Hilary Clinton in 2016 and Newsom in 2018. But, it was just in that same 2016 election that the GOP candidate who lost to Katie Hill by 9 points won by 6 points. During the special election earlier this year, the GOP candidate won Katie Hill's vacant seat by almost 10 points. Something very odd is going on here.

You will not see big GOP losses because the system has been sufficiently rigged through institutional practices and rules to allow a very energized minority to dominate politics if the majority are suppressed sufficiently. GOP favor-ability is in the negative for every demographic except white males. But it is white males who vote most of the time. This is inherently unstable as demographics move away each year.

You already know the reasons why this is the case, but suffice to say the point I want to make to you is that this house of cards will crumble once Democrats get the balls to start changing the rules in their favor. If you see any of the following acts taken between 2021 and 2022 you see those massive GOP losses in that respective area in the 2022 elections:

House of Reps
* Set House (or Congress) size to cube root of US Population as of last census.

State Legislatures
* Approve citizen commissions/councils for district boundaries.

Senate
* New Voting Rights Act

SCOTUS
* National Popular Vote Compact

If Dems retain a 52 seat majority after this election, the above should be the only goals along with expanding the judiciary. The above in place would cement the GOP as permanent minority status, which is where they will belong until they can pivot back to their 2012-2016 strategy of catering to Hispanics by dropping the rampant racism.

EDIT: One more relevant point from Nate Silver's twitter regarding what the current polling is telling us:
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/st...08860385640448

Quote:

---

FWIW, we estimate that a 9-point win today would be tantamount to a 16-point win in 1932 or 17-point win in 1980 given higher polarization. It is not easy to be behind by 9 points as an incumbent in a highly polarized environment.

---

Btw did the math, current Electoral College Representation (2010):

State	Census Population	Census Population Per Representative for Calculation	House Seats	Electoral College Votes	Census Population Per Representative for Calculation
Texas	25,268,418	701,901	36	38	701,901
Florida	18,900,773	700,029	27	29	700,029
California	37,341,989	704,566	53	55	704,566
North Carolina	9,565,781	735,829	13	15	735,829
New York	19,421,055	719,298	27	29	719,298
Georgia	9,727,566	694,826	14	16	694,826
Virginia	8,037,736	730,703	11	13	730,703
Arizona	6,412,700	712,522	9	11	712,522
Ohio	11,568,495	723,031	16	18	723,031
Pennsylvania	12,734,905	707,495	18	20	707,495
Illinois	12,864,380	714,688	18	20	714,688
New Jersey	8,807,501	733,958	12	14	733,958
Colorado	5,044,930	720,704	7	9	720,704
Washington	6,753,369	675,337	10	12	675,337
Massachusetts	6,559,644	728,849	9	11	728,849
Michigan	9,911,626	707,973	14	16	707,973
Tennessee	6,375,431	708,381	9	11	708,381
Missouri	6,011,478	751,435	8	10	751,435
Indiana	6,501,582	722,398	9	11	722,398
Maryland	5,789,929	723,741	8	10	723,741
Oregon	3,848,606	769,721	5	7	769,721
Louisiana	4,553,962	758,994	6	8	758,994
Wisconsin	5,698,230	712,279	8	10	712,279
South Carolina	4,645,975	663,711	7	9	663,711
Oklahoma	3,764,882	752,976	5	7	752,976
Minnesota	5,314,879	664,360	8	10	664,360
Kentucky	4,350,606	725,101	6	8	725,101
Alabama	4,802,982	686,140	7	9	686,140
Utah	2,770,765	692,691	4	6	692,691
Iowa	3,053,787	763,447	4	6	763,447
Connecticut	3,581,628	716,326	5	7	716,326
Nevada	2,709,432	677,358	4	6	677,358
Arkansas	2,926,229	731,557	4	6	731,557
Mississippi	2,978,240	744,560	4	6	744,560
Kansas	2,863,813	715,953	4	6	715,953
Idaho	1,573,499	786,750	2	4	786,750
New Mexico	2,067,273	689,091	3	5	689,091
Nebraska	1,831,825	610,608	3	5	610,608
West Virginia	1,859,815	619,938	3	5	619,938
Hawaii	1,366,862	683,431	2	4	683,431
Montana	994,416	994,416	1	3	994,416
New Hampshire	1,321,445	660,723	2	4	660,723
Maine	1,333,074	666,537	2	4	666,537
Delaware	900,877	900,877	1	3	900,877
South Dakota	819,761	819,761	1	3	819,761
Rhode Island	1,055,247	527,624	2	4	527,624
North Dakota	675,905	675,905	1	3	675,905
Alaska	721,523	721,523	1	3	721,523
Vermont	630,337	630,337	1	3	630,337
Wyoming	568,300	568,300	1	3	568,300

Cubed Root Rule Applied (690 Member House):

State	Census Population	Census Population Per Representative for Calculation	House Seats	Electoral College Votes	Census Population Per Representative for Calculation
Texas	25,268,418	451,222	56	58	451,222
Florida	18,900,773	450,018	42	44	450,018
California	37,341,989	449,903	83	85	449,903
North Carolina	9,565,781	455,513	21	23	455,513
New York	19,421,055	451,652	43	45	451,652
Georgia	9,727,566	442,162	22	24	442,162
Virginia	8,037,736	446,541	18	20	446,541
Arizona	6,412,700	458,050	14	16	458,050
Ohio	11,568,495	444,942	26	28	444,942
Pennsylvania	12,734,905	454,818	28	30	454,818
Illinois	12,864,380	443,599	29	31	443,599
New Jersey	8,807,501	440,375	20	22	440,375
Colorado	5,044,930	458,630	11	13	458,630
Washington	6,753,369	450,225	15	17	450,225
Massachusetts	6,559,644	437,310	15	17	437,310
Michigan	9,911,626	450,528	22	24	450,528
Tennessee	6,375,431	455,388	14	16	455,388
Missouri	6,011,478	462,421	13	15	462,421
Indiana	6,501,582	433,439	15	17	433,439
Maryland	5,789,929	445,379	13	15	445,379
Oregon	3,848,606	427,623	9	11	427,623
Louisiana	4,553,962	455,396	10	12	455,396
Wisconsin	5,698,230	438,325	13	15	438,325
South Carolina	4,645,975	464,598	10	12	464,598
Oklahoma	3,764,882	470,610	8	10	470,610
Minnesota	5,314,879	442,907	12	14	442,907
Kentucky	4,350,606	435,061	10	12	435,061
Alabama	4,802,982	436,635	11	13	436,635
Utah	2,770,765	461,794	6	8	461,794
Iowa	3,053,787	436,255	7	9	436,255
Connecticut	3,581,628	447,704	8	10	447,704
Nevada	2,709,432	451,572	6	8	451,572
Arkansas	2,926,229	418,033	7	9	418,033
Mississippi	2,978,240	425,463	7	9	425,463
Kansas	2,863,813	477,302	6	8	477,302
Idaho	1,573,499	393,375	4	6	393,375
New Mexico	2,067,273	413,455	5	7	413,455
Nebraska	1,831,825	457,956	4	6	457,956
West Virginia	1,859,815	464,954	4	6	464,954
Hawaii	1,366,862	455,621	3	5	455,621
Montana	994,416	497,208	2	4	497,208
New Hampshire	1,321,445	440,482	3	5	440,482
Maine	1,333,074	444,358	3	5	444,358
Delaware	900,877	450,439	2	4	450,439
South Dakota	819,761	409,881	2	4	409,881
Rhode Island	1,055,247	527,624	2	4	527,624
North Dakota	675,905	337,953	2	4	337,953
Alaska	721,523	360,762	2	4	360,762
Vermont	630,337	630,337	1	3	630,337
Wyoming	568,300	568,300	1	3	568,300

Indiana gets seat #690. Texas would be next in line for theoretical seat #691. Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wyoming do not get any new representatives by expanding the House to 690.

Debate was as I predicted in its tone and approach. But I don't understand why Harris didn't have a fuller repertoire of comments about Trump's record. Sure, more to remember, but there are hundreds of details to pepper in there that could be pre-selected from during preparation. Like the Trump admin's grossly-inefficient and Soviet-style population, potentially partisan, quotas for material aid in March and April (at least), or the environmental regulations that were rolled back in literally the past weeks. And she missed some easy rebuttals, such as pointing out that the American people have indeed had to lead the way on protecting themselves, making great sacrifices, but it was precisely because the Trump administration worked hard to mislead them and flood the zone with disinformation, all while enervating the state responses; Trump hurt both the American economy and public health and his own political prospects, all for his own delusions and psychotic disposition (though she perfunctorily reminded us of at least one Woodward interview). Also, easy fact-check on the spot left hanging: before even debating the effectiveness of Trump's "banning all travel from China," we should first recognize that Trump did not in fact ban all travel from China! Meanwhile, most other countries actually have banned travel from us...

I know that the modern debate format is utter trash, but it is what it is, so when you participate at least lean into the evanescence.


@ samurai re: post in other thread: :daisy: As far as I know deployment of non-delegation doctrine to the radical extent Republicans are foreshadowing has existed in our country only in 1935, neither before nor after. Of course the true doctrine is that "Democrats shall not govern" - you could never imagine hearing about it regarding a Republican governor or president's use of power. But if Roberts et al. are prepared to invoke as incoherent a doctrine as a human mind can contemplate, Congress can preempt them even short of court expansion by declaring their Article III powers (Art III, § 2: "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.") to exempt legislation from SCOTUS judicial review.

@ACIN: Electoral reforms are dead letters before Trump's judiciary. Waiting for them to act would be a mistake, as any window we gain (if we do at all) should be priced at only 2 years in expectation; expand the judiciary now or the Federalists will just play Taliban to our Surge.

First order is to add new district and circuit courts (which to some degree the Democratic 2020 platform already pledges to do). Also serves as a warning shot at the SCOTUS. The federal courts are overburdened and understaffed anyway, and need to be expanded apart from partisan considerations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

What many GOP supporters, outside of the ultra-conservative evangelicals, don't realize is that their own party could care less about them. You have this abject moron stating that "[...] ill or medically infirm senators [will be] wheeled in to cast critical votes on the Senate floor." [referring to the confirmation vote for Amy Coney Barrett]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/to.../05/id/990458/

Combine that with Fearless Leader just cancelling COVID stimulus talks until after the election, and voila, the Republicans just flipped the bird to a large proportion of their constituency. He just gave the Dems a great big target to use.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...mulus-election

Are you kidding me?:inquisitive:

---

Let it never be lost on us for the rest of our lives:

Republicans under Obama: Under no circumstances shall you govern
Democrats under Trump: PLEASE let us shower the American people with trillions of dollars in your name!
Republican under Trump to Democrats under Trump: Under no circumstances shall you... wait, uh-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I would not be surprised at a 55 to 42 vote in the popular vote.

The issue is that cadre of 6-7 swing states. Most/all of them show Biden with a lead of 3-7% but the margins of error vary and one or two feature a number of undecideds.

To be fair, 2016 featured far more undecideds at this juncture, Trump had no record to hang around his neck, and nobody hates Biden as they do H. Clinton.

I am hopeful -- but guarded.

Sadly, I do NOT see the GOP losing 40 house seats, 10 senate seats, and an extra third of the governerships. Which I would LIKE to see so that the GOP is forced to reboot.

---

The original expectation was that Biden might be fortunate enough to reproduce Obama's 2008 margins, but now that's the baseline expectation.

Granted that ours are not 1st-world standard elections, but the level of fraud needed to overcome these leads in enough states is - mathematically onerous. As long as the canvassing proceeds to its conclusion, of course. My real worry is in the Senate, where small differences in margins could cost a couple of leads on invaluable seats. In the House under the circumstances I would expect the Dem majority to fluctuate mildly, either +/- 5 seats. Now some might call me pessimistic here, but a huge proportion of competitive House races are decided by less than 1 point, which is well within striking distance of shenanigans.

As for governorships, there are actually very few notable positions up for this cycle. Out of 11 races total, the only one worth speaking of is the Montana race, where we could expect a Biden landslide (should it unfold) to deliver Democrats a clean sweep of the governorship, Senate seat, and House seat there.

The real winner of tonight's VP debate.....The Fly:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...-debate-427704

The big question is....was it carrying some disease formulated by the Dems designed to take out Mike Pence and the entire Trump administration.....~D

Predictably, Trump is refusing to participate in a virtual debate format. A lot can change in the next week though so he might participate by the end. Will be interesting to see what happens.

In the meantime, Trump is also saying that Gold Star families (families of fallen soldiers) might be to blame for giving him Covid. Yikes.

For those who are interested in Facebook/Cambridge Analytica-related muckery from 2016.

Quote:

---

Channel 4 News has exclusively obtained a vast cache of data used by Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign on almost 200 million American voters.

It reveals that 3.5 million Black Americans were categorised by Donald Trump’s campaign as ‘Deterrence’ – voters they wanted to stay home on election day.

Tonight, civil rights campaigners said the evidence amounted to a new form of voter “suppression” and called on Facebook to disclose ads and targeting information that has never been made public.

The ‘Deterrence’ project can be revealed after Channel 4 News obtained the database used by Trump’s digital campaign team – credited with helping deliver his shock victory to become president four years ago.

Vast in scale, it contains details on almost 200 million Americans, among more than 5,000 files, which together amass almost 5 terabytes of data – making it one of the biggest leaks in history.

---

Reminder that they want to do a coup:

https://www.propublica.org/article/d...tanding-policy

Quote:

---

The Department of Justice has weakened its long-standing prohibition against interfering in elections, according to two department officials.

Avoiding election interference is the overarching principle of DOJ policy on voting-related crimes. In place since at least 1980, the policy generally bars prosecutors not only from making any announcement about ongoing investigations close to an election but also from taking public steps — such as an arrest or a raid — before a vote is finalized because the publicity could tip the balance of a race.

But according to an email sent Friday by an official in the Public Integrity Section in Washington, now if a U.S. attorney’s office suspects election fraud that involves postal workers or military employees, federal investigators will be allowed to take public investigative steps before the polls close, even if those actions risk affecting the outcome of the election.

---

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...st-foes-427389

Quote:

---

Donald Trump mounted an overnight Twitter blitz demanding to jail his political enemies and call out allies he says are failing to arrest his rivals swiftly enough.

Trump twice amplified supporters’ criticisms of Attorney General William Barr, including one featuring a meme calling on him to “arrest somebody!” He wondered aloud why his rivals, like President Barack Obama, Democratic nominee Joe Biden and former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton hadn’t been imprisoned for launching a “coup” against his administration.

“Where are all of the arrests?” Trump said, after several dozen tweets on the subject over the past 24 hours. “Can you imagine if the roles were reversed? Long term sentences would have started two years ago. Shameful!”

By early afternoon, Trump was letting loose his frustrations in an all-caps missive that seemed aimed at nobody in particular.

“DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, THE BIGGEST OF ALL POLITICAL SCANDALS (IN HISTORY)!!! BIDEN, OBAMA AND CROOKED HILLARY LED THIS TREASONOUS PLOT!!! BIDEN SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO RUN - GOT CAUGHT!!!” Trump tweeted.

---

Trump on Fox calling Kamala Harris a communist monster and declaring his intent to win New York.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1314186938417655808 [VIDEO]


This isn't just the drugs talking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Levitz

The way Mike Lee talks about our form of government when he is voting to let a Republican president get away with crimes is VERY different from the way he talks about it when a Republican president is calling for the nullification of mail ballots in an election he is losing.

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i.imgur.com/o9fl4ru.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/I950Rr7.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/0bkbY9M.jpg

@ Samurai, I hope you don't die over there buddy!

Militia group plotted to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, feds say

Quote:

---

The federal government has charged six people with conspiring to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, according to newly unsealed court records.

Members of a militia group purchased weapons, conducted surveillance, and held training and planning meetings, but were foiled in part because the FBI was able to infiltrate the group with informants, according to a criminal complaint.

Watch live at 1: Michigan Attorney General to announce charges, operation

The FBI became aware early in 2020, through social media, that a militia group was "discussing the violent overthrow of certain government and law enforcement components," and "agreed to take violent action," according to a sworn affidavit.

Members of the group talked about "murdering ... tyrants" or "taking" a sitting governor, according to the affidavit. One of the relevant meetings the FBI monitored was held June 20 in Grand Rapids. the affidavit alleges. Another meeting was held at a home in Luther, Mich., and in Munith.

Discussions included using 200 men to "storm" the Capitol Building in Lansing, kidnap hostages, including, Whitmer and try the governor for treason, according to the affidavit.

The group met for field exercises and training this year and conducted surveillance of the the governor's vacation home on at least two occasions in late August and September, the affidavit alleges. They also purchased an 800,000-volt Taser and night goggles for use in the kidnapping plot, according to court records. Members of the plot said they wanted to complete the kidnapping before the Nov. 3 election, according to the affidavit.

---

For levity:

https://i.imgur.com/OWoERgc.png

If you ever prosecute the individuals behind Cambridge Analytica, can you spread the investigations a bit wider? I'd like the buttwipes on this side of the water to have to account for their actions too.

Quote:

---

@ Samurai, I hope you don't die over there buddy!

---

I don't think that Big Gretch was ever in any real danger, as authorities have been on to this since the spring. They wanted evidence beyond the initial six Wolverine Watchmen based in Michigan, because the others involved were attempting to do something similar in other states. The interesting part will be if they can "follow the money" behind this. As Grand Rapids seems to be 'ground zero' in the planning of this, will be interesting to see if the money trail leads back to....wait for it....the Devos family, the same Devos family that funded the armed protest rallies at the capital in the spring. And for those who don't know, Betsy Devos is Trump's Secretary of Education.....:inquisitive:

As a side note, it appears the Trump campaign has conceded that they will likely lose here in Spartan land, and need to spend their diminishing funds elsewhere. They've pulled almost all of the ads they had planned for radio and TV. Haven't heard one from the GOP in weeks, though it looks like they're going to throw several million in ads at us for the remainder of the month. The Biden campaign, however, is hammering the crap out of both. He's spent 55.6 million here as opposed to Trump's 21.7 most of which was spent before August.

As for me, I've already voted. I would highly recommend rabid Trump supporters not try harassing folks trying to vote in the Detroit Metro Area. Fearless Leader and the neo-nazi groups have the black voters promising to send their own "poll watchers" in many city districts. Wouldn't be surprised to see a few shootings...

I've got my shotguns oiled...so no worries mate~:)

Quote:

---

Trump on Fox calling Kamala Harris a communist monster and declaring his intent to win New York.

---

Quote:

---

He wondered aloud why his rivals, like President Barack Obama, Democratic nominee Joe Biden and former Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton hadn’t been imprisoned for launching a “coup” against his administration.

---

I often deride the Dems for being too passive, and the VP debate was another example of that. KH had the opportunity to nail Pence's ass to his seat on multiple occasions, but she didn't. In fairness, she was probably instructed to not come off as the "angry black woman." OTOH, for this election, at least, all the Dems really have to do is sit back and let Fearless Leader self-destruct, which he has been very good at. However, going forward, one thing Trump has said that is spot on true (also on the Woodward tapes):

Quote:

---

"You know what Mitch's biggest thing is in the whole world? His judges," Mr Trump told Woodward in the interview. "He will absolutely ask me, please let's get the judge approved instead of 10 ambassadors."

---

That's the surest way to see that your party stays in power, and your political agenda is forwarded. The Dems better learn......:stare:

Quote:

---

With Lissu’s campaign on hold, and the opposition still negotiating about forging a united front, the next steps in this high-stakes vote are unclear. Some observers fear that a second term for Magufuli would further erode Tanzania’s democratic norms and institutions. Already, the speaker of the National Assembly, Chama Cha Mapinduzi’s Job Ndugai, has stated he will move to abolish presidential terms limits if Magufuli wins reelection.

Tanzania, once a beacon of stability and democratic aspirations in East Africa, has become increasingly autocratic since Magufuli was elected president in 2015. Nicknamed “the bulldozer” during his days as the minister of public works, Magufuli won support among Tanzanians by promising to nationalize the country’s mining sector and spur infrastructure projects. As president, he has been ruthless in his suppression of dissent.

...Magufuli portrays support for his economic agenda as a key part of Tanzania’s national identity. “Anyone who is critical of his resource nationalism approach is seen as anti-state [and] not patriotic enough,” Jacob told WPR. The ruling party uses similar tactics to tar its critics, including journalists.

---

Quote:

---

At a jubilant rally one recent evening in the town of Geita, in northwestern Tanzania, Tundu Lissu sang along to Bob Marley’s “One Love” as he looked out on the sun setting over a sea of cheering supporters. The opposition firebrand is running to replace incumbent President John Magufuli in a general election later this month; he has been on the campaign trail since late August, drawing massive crowds at each stop.

“Everywhere I’ve gone, I’ve looked people in the eye,” Lissu told World Politics Review in an interview. “Everywhere I’ve gone, people are so happy. It’s unbelievable, and it’s uplifting.” He returned home this summer after three years in exile, part of which was spent recovering after unidentified gunmen shot him 16 times in 2017, in what he suspects was an assassination attempt.

Last Friday, however, the National Electoral Commission suspended his campaign for seven days, accusing Lissu of using “seditious language” and violating election rules. It’s the latest blow to the opposition, with the Oct. 28 elections fast approaching.

Magufuli, of the ruling Chama Cha Mapinduzi party, appears determined to curtail his opponents’ ability to participate in a free and fair vote. Dozens of opposition hopefuls at the municipal and parliamentary level were disqualified from this year’s race by the National Electoral Commission in August, leaving the ruling party running unopposed in certain areas of the country.

“The harassment is continuous, it is meticulous, it is down to the smallest detail,” said Robert Amsterdam, a lawyer for Lissu, who also defends the popstar-turned-presidential-candidate Bobi Wine in Uganda.

Even campaign posters have been weaponized by the government, which recently enacted a new tax on posting promotional materials, making it too expensive for the opposition to print and share posters, placards and fliers. “A political party should not be subjected to paying taxes on posters,” said Zitto Kabwe, head of the opposition Alliance for Change and Transparency party, or ACT-Wazalendo. “Posters are a public service, where citizens get a chance to know the candidates.”

Kabwe’s party has not been spared in the recent crackdown. Three ACT-Wazalendo members were arrested last month, and while two have since been released, the party’s social media officer, Dotto Rangimoto, remains in police custody for allegedly committing cybercrimes. And according to Human Rights Watch, more than a dozen government critics have been arrested since mid-June.

Violence has also increased as elections draw closer. Police teargassed Lissu’s convoy as he traveled to a rally last week, firing chemicals into the crowd for some 15 minutes. And a disturbing video shared on social media shows people bleeding after apparently having been beaten with sticks in clashes with security forces.

Neither Magufuli’s office nor the electoral commission responded to emails from World Politics Review requesting comment on irregularities in the campaign process, and restrictions imposed on the opposition.

Undeterred by recent attacks, Lissu’s CHADEMA party and ACT-Wazalendo are currently in talks to unite behind Lissu ahead of Election Day. CHADEMA has already endorsed ACT-Wazalendo’s Seif Shariff Hamad, who is running for president of the semi-autonomous Zanzibar archipelago in a concurrent election. But authorities say these efforts could violate the rules. In a recent statement to the press, the deputy registrar for political parties, Sisty Nyahoza, said the law forbids political parties from forming coalitions this late in the election season.

---

Quote:

---

The repressive environment also makes it difficult to hold the government accountable for its response to COVID-19. Since late April, Magufuli’s administration has not released any data about the spread of the coronavirus in Tanzania, maintaining that the country has rid itself of COVID-19 though prayer. It’s hard to challenge that official line for fear of retribution, and newspapers and television stations have been sanctioned for sharing warnings about the virus.

“I grew up in a fairly peaceful country,” said Mwanahamisi Singano, a Tanzanian women’s rights advocate. “I took that for granted,” she added. “Every time you feel this possibly won’t get worse, it gets worse.”

With fears of a rigged vote looming, U.S. Rep. Karen Bass, a Democrat from California, last week introduced a resolution in Congress calling for free and fair elections in Tanzania. “This is a critical moment in history and democratic backsliding must be called out wherever we see it,” she said in a statement. Sen. James Risch, an Idaho Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also condemned the suspension of Lissu’s campaign.

---

Quote:

---

“I fear more police violence in the days and weeks ahead,” Lissu said. “The fear of violence in this election is much greater than in previous elections, and the reason is simple. We are winning. They know it and we know it.”

---

:sweatdrop: :sweatdrop: :sweatdrop:

~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

...Magufuli portrays support for his economic agenda as a key part of Tanzania’s national identity. “Anyone who is critical of his resource nationalism approach is seen as anti-state [and] not patriotic enough,” Jacob told WPR. The ruling party uses similar tactics to tar its critics, including journalists.

---

Sound familiar?

Quote:

---

“Where are all of the arrests?” Trump said, after several dozen tweets on the subject over the past 24 hours. “Can you imagine if the roles were reversed? Long term sentences would have started two years ago. Shameful!”

“DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, THE BIGGEST OF ALL POLITICAL SCANDALS (IN HISTORY)!!! BIDEN, OBAMA AND CROOKED HILLARY LED THIS TREASONOUS PLOT!!! BIDEN SHOULDN’T BE ALLOWED TO RUN - GOT CAUGHT!!!”

---

However, Fearless Leader would be tagged as "Tonka Toy" rather than "Bulldozer".~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ReluctantSamurai

Sound familiar?

---

"Magufuli." Think real carefully about that one. Roll it around on your tongue.

First as tragedy, second time - won't get fooled again?

Quote:

---

However, Fearless Leader would be tagged as "Tonka Toy" rather than "Bulldozer".~D

---

"Bulldozer" could definitely be a Trumpian epithet.

https://i.imgur.com/IfNM5mM.jpg


Following the election, I really hope the entire Democratic community can get a clue and make it a top theme of their public communications that fascists are not normal and we should stop treating them as normal. These deviant punk don't get to define America. Forget about "clinging to guns" or "deplorables," the salutary thing is to say straight in their faces: "You are not normal."


Anyway, the Minneapolis saga comes to an end - or interregnum - as the Charter Commission declined a month ago to allow any police reform measures to come onto the ballot this year.