US Politics: Four Days and Counting

[Frog Eater]

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

An aquaintance at my new employer advised that people were being told to completely deactivate their smartphones per Department of Homeland Security instructions.  This was in Greenville County SC.

She also said there were some heated arguments taking place in the long lines to  vote.

Here in Richland County, the people all seemed in good spirits, were talking and joking in line, and it took about an hour to vote. Dont know anything about turning the smart phones off, we were not told anything of that sort. was her description a first hand account, or a story from someone who heard a story?

I feel pretty good about the election today. The Republican enthusiasm I see is as high as 2016, and I think the Republicans have a chance to hold the House and will gain a few Senate seats as well. Trump campaigning these last few weeks has really increased Republican enthusiasm. Any Supreme Court confirmations next year should go a lot smoother. 

I am worried about the Governor seats in Florida and Georgia, but we will see. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

Here in Richland County, the people all seemed in good spirits, were talking and joking in line, and it took about an hour to vote. Dont know anything about turning the smart phones off, we were not told anything of that sort. was her description a first hand account, or a story from someone who heard a story?

I feel pretty good about the election today. The Republican enthusiasm I see is as high as 2016, and I think the Republicans have a chance to hold the House and will gain a few Senate seats as well. Trump campaigning these last few weeks has really increased Republican enthusiasm. Any Supreme Court confirmations next year should go a lot smoother. 

I am worried about the Governor seats in Florida and Georgia, but we will see. 

First hand.  She was voting in Fountain Inn in southern Greenville County.

[SeanF]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

Good way to look at this is 538's Governors forecast.  If the Dems pickup the 8 seats they expect, Dem governors will cumulatively be in states with 195 million of the total population.  That's 59%, which bodes well for the House and redistricting.  If you look at the states beyond Texas the GOP holds, it emphasizes how much this cycle can mitigate gerrymandering - especially considering three of the handful of semi-large states the GOP will still hold are Maryland, Massachusetts, and Arizona.  This is the biggest potential story that's not getting enough attention.

Would they not also need the legislatures, too?

[Fez]

52 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

This is true, but not all states are equally important.  A lot of those Republican trifectas are in states with very few people.  While I'm sure it sucks for the people living in those states, a trifecta in Illinois is a great deal more important nationally than one in Wyoming.  If Democrats have a good election this year, they could have at least a share of 14 of the top 15 most populous states (all but TX).  In comparison, the Democrats could have CA, NY, IL, WA and NJ.

For the most part, yeah, there's certainly some states more important to others. But there are two places where all states are equal and its a sheer numbers game: 1) Deciding whether to hold a constitutional convention and 2) Deciding the laws around the election of senators.

For the first, Republicans are currently shockingly close to having enough legislative chambers to call for a constitutional convention without any Democratic votes, and, even though I don't think Republicans have the willpower yet to do it or ability to come to a consensus on what amendments to propose, I want to get as far away from it as possible.

For the second, yes there's the 17th amendment, but there's all sorts of fuckery Republicans could get up to while still technically adhering to it. Stuff like requiring senate candidates to win a majority of counties or legislative districts, rather than the popular vote.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Teng Ai Hui said:

I'm such a bundle of nerves today.  I can't decide if I want to stay in bed all day or get up and go daydrinking.

My advice, assuming you don’t have to work today and tomorrow, is to unplug and read a book or watch some movies. Then crack open a bottle once the results start coming in.  

[Ran]

19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don’t believe birthright citizenship can be changed via Legislation.  If people want to stop “birth tourism” it will take a Constitutional Amendment.

I thought so as well, but apparently Posner thinks there are arguments that only a statutory change is needed and it's way above my knowledge of the law to really say. All I know for sure is an executive order can't do it! Posner, FWIW, cites Shuck and Smith, and I found this PDF which seems to be a summation of the argument that Posner found credible.

[lokisnow]

My predictions systemic polling error:

(And thanks to the Russians EVERY close race favoring republicans  will be about 2000 votes more than the margin that would trigger an automatic recount)

house D + 12, R+3

senate D+1, R+7

[DMC]

32 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Would they not also need the legislatures, too?

The governor can veto the legislature's plan in most states.

32 minutes ago, Fez said:

For the first, Republicans are currently shockingly close to having enough legislative chambers to call for a constitutional convention without any Democratic votes, and, even though I don't think Republicans have the willpower yet to do it or ability to come to a consensus on what amendments to propose, I want to get as far away from it as possible.

For the second, yes there's the 17th amendment, but there's all sorts of fuckery Republicans could get up to while still technically adhering to it. Stuff like requiring senate candidates to win a majority of counties or legislative districts, rather than the popular vote.

To the bolded, uh, yeah.  I'd almost encourage the GOP legislatures calling a convention just to watch them argue over how in the hell it'd ever get ratified.

As for the second, good luck getting by the 17th amendment.

21 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

house D + 12, R+3

senate D+1, R+7

What?

[Mexal]

As always, loads of stories going around about how hard it is for people to vote, especially important counties like in Detroit, Maricopa County, AZ, etc. I hate election day.

[Ormond]

I voted on the way to work this morning. I am a bit worried because there was NOT a long line -- there were only two other people in line with me. However, I vote at an elementary school and I got there just before the school day started when there were hordes of kids walking in the door, so perhaps other voters knew not to show up at that particular moment.  

I got a circular in the mail from the local Democratic party giving me the name of every Democrat running for every office in Douglas County -- which there were many of, since we vote on entirely too many offices in Nebraska, including County Engineer. I don't remember ever getting such a circular in the mail before, so maybe that's a sign the Dems are better organized here than in the past.

I was filling out my ballot when the school day started. I knew I lived in the heavily Hispanic area of Omaha. When the principal came over the intercom, after she reminded the kids that there would be a lot of adults coming in to the school to vote today, she said "Now we will have the Pledge of Allegiance", and it was a little girl saying the pledge in Spanish. After that the principal herself said it in English.  I thought that was great though I know it would have driven my Trump supporting relatives up the wall.  

[Ormond]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

What?

He's giving the numbers he thinks will flip in both directions, so the overall would be House D+9 and Senate R+6. 

Lokinsnow is the Emperor of Pessimism. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

They still do the Pledge of Allegiance in schools?  Pretty gross.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don’t believe birthright citizenship can be changed via Legislation.  If people want to stop “birth tourism” it will take a Constitutional Amendment.

 

39 minutes ago, Ran said:

I thought so as well, but apparently Posner thinks there are arguments that only a statutory change is needed and it's way above my knowledge of the law to really say. All I know for sure is an executive order can't do it! Posner, FWIW, cites Shuck and Smith, and I found this PDF which seems to be a summation of the argument that Posner found credible.

I think it can be done either by legislation or an EO. You can’t undo birthright citizenship straight up, but I don’t see why you couldn’t ban women who are eight months pregnant from entering the country. The optics would be horrible, but I don’t see why it can’t be done.   

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Ormond said:

I thought that was great though I know it would have driven my Trump supporting relatives up the wall.  

Maybe that thought added to the greatness of the moment.

Either way, just dropped in to say: good luck to the Democrats (and their voters).

Let's make America sane, again.

[Ran]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

I think it can be done either by legislation or an EO. You can’t undo birthright citizenship straight up, but I don’t see why you couldn’t ban women who are eight months pregnant from entering the country. The optics would be horrible, but I don’t see why it can’t be done.   

That's not undoing it in the way that Trump argues he could undo it via EO. It's more like placing a limitation on immigration to try to avoid the issue entirely. But yes, in theory I guess he could try to do that, but I'm not even certain that would stand up to legal challenges. For one thing, executive orders attempting to restrict immigration, as Trump has done, were (mendaciously) based on "national security" and the office's vast powers in relation to that. I can't see a construction of "national security" related to pregnant women that would fly.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

I think it can be done either by legislation or an EO. You can’t undo birthright citizenship straight up, but I don’t see why you couldn’t ban women who are eight months pregnant from entering the country. The optics would be horrible, but I don’t see why it can’t be done.   

Banning women who are late in pregnancy from entering the US is within Legislative or (potentially) EO perview.  What cannot be done is to claim that by EO or Legislation a child born of a non-citizen within the US is not a citizen of the US.

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Ormond said:

He's giving the numbers he thinks will flip in both directions, so the overall would be House D+9 and Senate R+6. 

I know, just giving him shit.  Like, he can't do that math for us?!?

48 minutes ago, Ran said:

I thought so as well, but apparently Posner thinks there are arguments that only a statutory change is needed and it's way above my knowledge of the law to really say. All I know for sure is an executive order can't do it! Posner, FWIW, cites Shuck and Smith, and I found this PDF which seems to be a summation of the argument that Posner found credible.

Whether it was administered by an EO or a statute, it would inevitably end up in the courts.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Banning women who are late in pregnancy from entering the US is within Legislative or (potentially) EO perview.  What cannot be done is to claim that by EO or Legislation a child born of a non-citizen within the US is not a citizen of the US.

Why not?  What's stopping the order or legislation?  It wouldn't be stopped until it came before a court, right?  

I can't see how this would be any different than laws or EOs that restrict other amendments - they're there until they're challenged.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

No lines where I am in Manhattan but didn't expect there to be. It was pretty calm in 2012 too.

We waited an hour in Manhattan.  Line was wrapped all the way around the block....saw the same at other polling places we passed, so may just depend.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I voted at 7:15 this AM.  No lines, 4 others voting at my very rural polling place.  Overheard two pollworkers talking saying I was the 70th person (maybe it was really 17th?) to vote there today.