POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[Montmorency]

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.

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

Hehehehehe

“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.

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.

[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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[ReluctantSamurai]

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

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.

[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.

[Montmorency]

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.)

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.

[ReluctantSamurai]

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?

[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.

[ReluctantSamurai]

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.

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...

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Montmorency]

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: 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.

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?

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-

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.

[ReluctantSamurai]

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.....

[Hooahguy]

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.

[Montmorency]

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

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

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

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.

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: 

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

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

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:

[Pannonian]

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.

[ReluctantSamurai]

@ 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.....

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

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

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):

"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......

[Montmorency]

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.

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.

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.

“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.”

[ReluctantSamurai]

...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?

“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".

[Montmorency]

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?

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

"Bulldozer" could definitely be a Trumpian epithet.




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.

[Idaho]

Regarding that cartoon, the one thing you have to give trump is the decline of America as a colonial Imperial power. I hate the guy and everything about him, but he's not been a puppet of the arms industry like every president before him. Maybe this is just Putin pulling strings?

[ReluctantSamurai]

but he's not been a puppet of the arms industry like every president before him.

Not so much:

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/07/tr...uipment-claim/

As we said, the budgets signed by Trump (including the fiscal 2017 budget), include an increase in defense spending from Obama’s second term.

The Defense Department report shows the 2017-2020 budgets are 9.3% larger than the 2013-2016 budgets. But the defense budgets signed by Trump are 10.8% lower than the 2009-2012 budgets, in inflation-adjusted dollars. (Again, the 2009 fiscal year defense budget was signed by Bush in September 2008.)

Obama’s second-term budgets were subject to spending caps under the Budget Control Act of 2011, an effort to lower federal deficits. Beginning in fiscal 2013, Congress has raised those caps every year, according to a Congressional Research Service report, and there have been much larger cap increases in the last three defense budgets signed by Trump.

In looking solely at procurement, the budgets for 2017-2020 are 24.8% larger than those in 2013-2016 but 5.8% lower than the 2009-2012 budgets, in inflation-adjusted figures.

So, like pretty much every president since WW2, he's been a sock-puppet for the military...as has Congress.

[Montmorency]

https://twitter.com/stevemorris__/st...15904131895296 [VIDEO]

Lindsey Graham, facing a Black challenger: "If you're a young African American...you can go anywhere in this state, you just need to be conservative not liberal."

'N-rs won't have no trouble if they know their place.'

Speaking of white terror, Michigan (and the rest of the country) needs to handle the seditious, supremacist elements among the police.
https://twitter.com/rossjonesWXYZ/st...81815815004160 [VIDEO, 1:00+]


ACIN will be interested in this one, but it's more for all the non-Americans who haven't heard this information many times by now.



Since 1933, Republicans have only had trifectas (full control of federal government) for 4 years under Eisenhower, 4 years under Bush II, and 2 years under Trump (one of the least productive sessions for major legislation thankfully). Notably, they have never achieved 60% representation in either chamber of Congress since 1930 (technically winter of 1931).

Despite this distribution of democratic tenure, over the past 87 years Democratic presidents and Republican presidents will both have elevated 20 justices each to the SCOTUS (after the coming confirmation), and over the past 50 years almost all of those will have been Republican nominations. Liberals will have only had a relatively-friendly SCOTUS for the 1960s (a mere decade following a full generation of Democratic congressional hammerlock).

The sitting SCOTUS is already the most reactionary since the Lochner era a century ago. Teach them what Jefferson taught the OG Federalists.

At any rate, the idea that the practice of judicial review in the United States requires national governing coalitions to accept an entrenched minority faction in the federal judiciary refusing to let them govern is ahistorical nonsense. There have been three periods in which there were major clashes between a governing coalition and the Supreme Court, and every time the Court backed down.

Regarding that cartoon, the one thing you have to give trump is the decline of America as a colonial Imperial power. I hate the guy and everything about him, but he's not been a puppet of the arms industry like every president before him. Maybe this is just Putin pulling strings?

Beyond the record military budgets (going mostly to procurement of equipment and platforms) mentioned above, Trump has been a thorough chickenhawk of a president, and though troop levels abroad have hardly changed he's done a lot of damage to American interests and influence (you're right in the sense of contributing to the decline of the empire).

Not surprising for a President who, as a private citizen under Obama, affirmed a desire to be in Iraq and Libya "to take the oil," and who redeployed troops from Northern Syria to Southern Syria a year ago - enabling Turkish ethnic cleansing of local Kurds - in order to "protect the oil."

It could always be a rank coincidence that Trump's foreign policy has consistently been above replacement value for Putin, since whatever degrades the American Empire is almost definitionally of benefit to Putin. :P

I should point out though that the interests of empire are much bigger than the relatively-measly arms industry, per se.

[Hooahguy]

Beyond the record military budgets (going mostly to procurement of equipment and platforms) mentioned above, Trump has been a thorough chickenhawk of a president, and though troop levels abroad have hardly changed he's done a lot of damage to American interests and influence (you're right in the sense of contributing to the decline of the empire).

Not surprising for a President who, as a private citizen under Obama, affirmed a desire to be in Iraq and Libya "to take the oil," and who redeployed troops from Northern Syria to Southern Syria a year ago - enabling Turkish ethnic cleansing of local Kurds - in order to "protect the oil."

It could always be a rank coincidence that Trump's foreign policy has consistently been above replacement value for Putin, since whatever degrades the American Empire is almost definitionally of benefit to Putin. :P

I should point out though that the interests of empire are much bigger than the relatively-measly arms industry, per se.

It should also be mentioned that I think the biggest foreign policy hit has been in America's soft power, not hard power. The damage that Tillerson started with hollowing out the State Department and Pompeo continued will last a generation. A friend of mine works for a State Dept contractor and she says shes just barely hanging on. Morale is so low that the only reason people have stopped quitting is because of the pandemic and the subsequent recession. Just under Tillerson, over half of the State's top-ranking career diplomats resigned and many posts still remain vacant or by people who are underqualified. Biden, if he wins, will have to work fast to undo the worst of these changes.

[Montmorency]

You can see how the American armaments industry gets on people's nerves.
https://twitter.com/PFTompkins/statu...82344111280130 [VIDEO]


You can also kind of see why the Taliban just endorsed Trump.

[Montmorency]

I need to make a correction to an earlier post. If you look at the chart of Congressional control over time more carefully than I had, you'll spot that Eisenhower only enjoyed 2 years - a single Congressional session - of full control, not 4. (To further correct an error not of my own, the chart incorrectly codes Lincoln's second term as a Democratic administration; Johnson, while terrible, was not technically a Democrat as Lincoln's VP and successor).

Some more observations: The majority of Republican nominations to the Supreme Court since 1932 were confirmed by Democratic Senates. Meanwhile, a Republican Senate has not confirmed a single Democratic nomination since under Grover Cleveland in 1895.

As Republicans bleat during the upcoming Barrett hearings that they should be afforded unlimited opportunity to hijack insulated institutions to effect their radical and unpopular agenda without democratic review or ratification (said agenda being primarily to block and eliminate all vestiges Democratic governance), let's recall that in the ancient year of the before-times 2016 Republicans up and down their caucus explicitly ran on denying a Hillary Clinton administration any Supreme Court hearings, any federal judicial hearings in general, and even on the threat of legislatively shrinking the Supreme Court from 9 to 6 in order to "thereby reduce the capability of the Court to engage in judicial activism harmful to the Constitution."

2021 better look like:

[Hooahguy]

Meanwhile the media is doing its job in turning this yet again into a "both sides" issue:

But there is a tradition in the media to "balance" the coverage between competing candidates. And, in recent days, journalists — with help from Republican operatives — have manufactured a controversy involving Biden. On the trail, Biden is repeatedly asked if he supports expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court, a policy sometimes referred to as "court packing."

In recent days, Biden has declined to explicitly state whether he would support expanding the court, saying he would "stay focused" on Republican efforts to install Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg after early voting has already begun.


The media has largely accepted the Trump campaign's argument that Biden's refusal to definitely answer this question is a scandal.

Now whether or not Biden would actually expand the court is another issue. He has said he wouldn't a couple times during the primary, but that was before RBG died and the GOP rush to nominate a successor. So is Biden playing his cards close to his chest because he wants to conceal his plans or does he not want to demoralize Dem voters? I guess we will find out soon enough.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Definition of scandal: "an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage."

Packing the court can hardly be considered legally wrong, as the Constitution doesn't actually specify the number of justices on the Supreme Court, AFAIK. Morally wrong? Good luck with that one. Even defining what's moral or not will create arguing for the next decade. Public outrage? The GOP would certainly be outraged, but you know that if they had the need and the opportunity, they'd do it themselves. Because they've made conservative SCOTUS appointments one of their top priorities the last 20-30 years, they haven't had to consider the tactic. Ramming the ACB nomination through a month before the elections highlights just how "moral" GOP senators are, no matter the Democratic outrage.

Biden should just keep to his plan, and not let this cloud the issues at hand. He's under no moral or legal obligation to say anything, and if it were me, I'd keep the Republicans guessing as to his intentions.

Better yet, Biden could say if Trump releases his taxes to the general public, he'd declare his intentions one way or another.


And yes, the media are ratings puppets doing their best to stir up controversy.

[ReluctantSamurai]

As a follow up to the previous several posts...

Court packing has already been happening at the state level, with increasing attempts to do so in recent years. Case in point, Arizona:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...ppening-428601

Arizona’s Supreme Court had five judges for 56 years. But on December 19, 2016, thanks to a GOP-authored bill that was opposed by every Democrat in the state Legislature, Republican Governor Doug Ducey held a ceremony in the Old Capitol building to swear in a sixth justice, and then a seventh.

In all, Ducey has appointed five of the seven justices on the state court, taking a personal interest in vetting candidates with questions designed to ferret out a fidelity to textualism and an inclination to uphold, rather than overturn or tinker with, the law. His appointments, including the addition of the two new justices, have eliminated the court’s progressive caucus and swung it from a more moderate conservative tilt to one that emphasizes libertarianism, populism, and law and order, in line with Ducey’s own views. And the ages of its younger members mean the court likely will stay that way for years.

While Ducey consistently has said he was not packing the court for political purposes, Republicans acknowledge they wouldn’t have proposed the change if it would have meant handing over two seats for a Democratic governor to fill.

If at first you don't succeed, just change the playing field:

After the commission rejected his application for Ducey's fourth vacancy in 2019, Ducey simply replaced the three commissioners who had voted against Montgomery. Soon enough, his name made it to the governor’s desk, and he was seated on the court as Ducey's fifth and likely final appointee.

A body that had four conservatives and one liberal when Ducey took office now consisted of seven conservatives and zero liberals.

Contradiction at its' finest:

Mesnard, the lawmaker who sponsored the expansion bill, maintains that the effort was nothing like the “packing” that Democrats in Washington are considering now. Unlike national Democrats, he says, his motivation wasn’t to change the court’s ideological composition.

“I wasn’t trying to achieve a specific end,” he says. “It wasn’t like, ‘I don’t like the rulings coming out, so I want to add more to tilt it a certain way.’”

Still, he acknowledges that he wouldn’t have pushed the legislation if he were handing over two seats on the high court to a Democratic governor. “It’s impossible to separate the politics from that type of decision,” he said in a recent interview. “I wasn’t going to dance around it or pretend that there weren’t serious political implications.”

While the short-term changes to Arizona law haven't been as drastic as the Dems were forecasting, there's this warning to Arizona's future:

Despite this ruling, Democratic state Senator Martin Quezada, a lawyer who led the fight against the bill in 2016, says Democrats’ fears about the political implications have proved to be “a little overblown,” at least in the short term. Quezada now thinks Republicans were engaged in more of a long-game strategy designed to keep Democrats from enacting progressive policies for another generation, as a bulwark against the voters who are electing Democrats in increasing numbers.

Ducey’s five Supreme Court appointments in his six years in office have cemented a conservative legacy that will long outlive his governorship and, likely, the Republican majorities that have dominated the state capitol for more than 50 years. Three of the five conservative men Ducey has appointed are younger than the 56-year-old governor.

“As we turn blue, I think there’s a belief that we will do radically leftist policies, and those will be challenged and that court will be the backstop,” Quezada says. “And I can’t say it’s a bad strategy on their part. The state is turning blue, and that is a good way to maintain a backstop through the judicial system.”

In addition to the successful court-packing in Arizona, Georgia also succeeded in packing their State Supreme Court:

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery...026105&EXT=pdf

Specifically, in 2016, the Republican-controlled Georgia General Assembly considered a sweeping reform bill, intended not only to expand the supreme court from seven to nine justices, but also to restructure the appellate jurisdiction and procedures for the high court and the court of appeals. There was considerable speculation that the Republican governor was interested in expanding the court purely for political reasons; at the time, Georgia had four Democratic appointees and only three Republican ones. And in Georgia,the governor has full autonomy in selecting justices. Over accusations of court packing, the General Assembly passed the bill in the spring of 2016, and the governor promptly signed it. By the next calendar year, the governor had filled the two new seats, resulting in a “more conservative-leaning court."

Other states have tried to pack/unpack their courts, but have so far failed. Florida, Iowa, South Carolina, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, Washington, and Alabama. Beginning to see a pattern here? All states with Republican controlled government, except for Washington. However, even in Washington the proposed reduction in the number of state supreme court justices was initiated by Republicans.

Of further note:

The preceding analysis documents how there have been numerous attempts in the last decade to both increase and decrease the size of state supreme courts for what appears to be political gain. One question that naturally follows is whether anything of a more generalized nature can be said about this set of attempts (and successes)and the state environments in which they arose.

First, one can begin with potential commonalities among the proposed bills and/or states that saw attempts to alter their state supreme courts. The most discernible pattern is also the one that should be least surprising: it appears that various elected officials pushed for changes to their state supreme court when doing so was in their political interest. Specifically, several of the states in which there were proposals to expand or contract the court had the following features: a legislature that was of the same party as the governor; a selection method for justices that hinged on appointment by the governor; and a closely divided supreme court. To be sure, not all of the examples here fit this pattern. To wit, the proposal to expand the Louisiana State Supreme Court would have done so by adding districts for popular election. And the Arizona State Supreme Court was not “ideologically balanced” before its recent expansion; four of the five justices in 2016 were Republican appointees (although the court arguably became more conservative after the change). Notwithstanding these exceptions, the larger point holds: the proposed attempts to alter the courts were often done in ways that would guarantee adding justices from a political party to shift the ideological makeup of the court in a considerable way.

Though elected officials tended to push for judicial change when it appeared to suit them politically, the ultimate proposals took many forms across many states. The final question is what these findings might mean for the larger discourse around court packing.

Finally:

In short, the past decade has seen a significant number of attempts to alter state supreme courts—both through proposed packing and unpacking. Indeed, a few of those attempts have been successful, leading to fundamentally altered state courts of last resort. To be sure, further research is needed to gain a better understanding of why these proposals were made in these states at this time, why some were successful, and why some states saw no such proposals at all. But the preceding analysis does bring to light the variation among proposals and at least some of the circumstances that led to them. Though elected officials tended to push for judicial change when it appeared to suit them politically, the ultimate proposals took many forms across many states.The final question is what these findings might mean for the larger discourse around court packing. While scholars and politicians continue to debate whether Republicans unpacked the Supreme Court in 2016, and whether Democrats should pack the Court if they take the Oval Office and the Senate in 2020, they should not overlook the clear instances of court packing that have recently taken place. As Part II discusses, there were attempts in more than 20 percent of all states in the last decade to alter the size of the state supreme court, with two of them successful. What could this state of play mean for the federal courts? There are different ways to interpret the data from Part II. The most straightforward interpretation, it would seem, is that the norm against court packing might be more vulnerable than some have thought—at least as it concerns the state courts. After all, if court packing and unpacking were considered strictly verboten, one would not expect to see over twenty different bills to pack and unpack the highest court in eleven different states.

So all of this talk of potential court-packing by the Dems being 'scandalous' is BS at its' best. Republicans have repeatedly attempted (and succeeded twice) the very same thing in state supreme courts.

[a completely inoffensive name]

'I support the will of the American people who overwhelmingly wish for the next justice to be picked by the winner of this election. If elected, I will follow the public's mandate and nominate justices to balance the court as directed by the people."