POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[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.

[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.

[Hooahguy]

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.

[Montmorency]

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

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

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




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

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.

[ReluctantSamurai]

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.

[Montmorency]

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

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

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.

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.”


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.

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[ReluctantSamurai]

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/

“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:

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...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.

[Hooahguy]

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.”

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.

[ReluctantSamurai]

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

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.

[Pannonian]

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

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.

[Hooahguy]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[ReluctantSamurai]

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/

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:

"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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

Deaf ears.

[Montmorency]

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...)

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.

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.

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.

Pelosi has pretty much run up the white flag

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.


"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.

[Crandar]

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...

[ReluctantSamurai]

From the above link:

“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

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

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?

[Hooahguy]

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.

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).

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.

[ReluctantSamurai]

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

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

[Hooahguy]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

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.

[ReluctantSamurai]

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

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.

[ReluctantSamurai]

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.

[Hooahguy]

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.

[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:

“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?