POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[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]

...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.

[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.