Jump to content

US Politics: Four Days and Counting


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

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.

I recently moved around the beltway from VA to MD and it took much longer to vote now.  In VA it never took longer than 5 minutes to vote, but in Maryland I was in line for 40 minutes to get a ballot.  I hope this is because of high voter enthusiasm and not just the norm in Maryland, but I was irritated.  Having to wait to vote is dumb, it shouldn't be happening.  I can barely imagine the cost in lost productivity (not to mention time with your family, etc) from all these lines to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Predictions from a Republican POV

Senate:

FL-D

MO- R

IN- D

ND- R

TN- R

TX- R

NV- D

AZ- R

MT- D

I believe those are all the battlegrounds but I could have missed one or two. Personally, I'm really nervous about how things will play out in AZ and NV, if Republicans lose those seats it could be the next step in those states going the way of Virginia. It'll be hard to win them back.

I agree with what was said upthread about how the governor races have been fairly overlooked. Obviously Florida has gotten the most attention, and yes if Gillum wins it'll be very problematic for Reps when it comes to redistricting in 2020. Not out of the question that GOP still wins Senate and Gov races in FL, but I wouldn't bet on it happening.

Dems flip the house, but to me, and this may be shortsighted I know, I only care about the Senate at this point. As long as the possibility exists to confirm more judges, SCOTUS and appellate courts, I'm ok with that. It's not as if any major legislation was going to get passed anytime soon anyway.

Anyway those are my hot takes for the day, happy election day folks and may the best candidates win!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Ran said:

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.

Well yeah, it wouldn’t be outright undoing birthright citizenship, but it would be the next best thing if you think it should be banned. And as far as legal challenges goes, I really can’t say how that would play out. I think the key would be establishing standing. After that, all bets are off. Lastly, Trump is sending 5,000 to 15,000 troops to the boarder based on national security claims that are totally bogus. I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t try to do the same with birthright citizenship. It’s not like reality has ever governed his decision making process.

18 minutes ago, 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.

I agree, though I fear at some point Trump will go full Andrew Jackson and tell the courts to shove it. What happens if the courts rule it unconstitutional and Trump simply ignores them?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anecdotal evidence does point to higher turnout, but at this point no one knows whether it is driven by Republicans or Democrats or a mix that no one knows about. I will point out that some of the latest polls on the generic ballot showed at least a +1 move (average) towards the Democrats, so I am feeling good about the Democrat chances.

My prediction is D+45 House, Senate: AZ/NV/FL/TX/WV/MT/IN go D, MO/ND/TN go R (I...dont know what that ends up being)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I agree, though I fear at some point Trump will go full Andrew Jackson and tell the courts to shove it. What happens if the courts rule it unconstitutional and Trump simply ignores them?  

People have been asking that question for 230 years.

4 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Senate: AZ/NV/FL/TX/WV/MT/IN go D, MO/ND/TN go R (I...dont know what that ends up being)

That'd be a 50-50 split..I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

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.

They are would be challenged almost immediately.  The Constitution cannot be amended by mere legislation or EO.  Any such action should be slapped down hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Ran said:

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.

But what if those pregnant women have smallpox or Ebola or are carrying nascent jihadis in their wombs? You need to give Trump more credit here, he's a connoisseur of fearmongering and there's nothing that his base won't get apoplectic over.

Voted this morning on the way to work. Really was not that busy but my polling place tends to be much busier near the end of the day so I'm not sure that it means anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Altherion said:

There's a set of behaviors (e.g. not repaying one's debts) that nearly all cultures agree is bad. The bet China is making is that they can build a better society by measuring people than by going entirely without measurement. As the Vox article points out, the US is not that far from this: we don't have the kind of comprehensive score that they're aiming for, but we do have a credit score which provides incentives such as lower mortgage and car rates.

Maybe and maybe not. We'll see soon enough -- they claim that it'll be ready in 2020.

If not paying your debts is such a bad thing, explain to me how someone sued for not paying their debts, and then gets sued his own lawyers for not paying his debts again, manages to reach high office. Yes the deadbeat is Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

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.

Interesting. I'm in the UWS and when I voted in 2016, it was similar though I waited maybe 10 minutes then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

My prediction is D+45 House, Senate: AZ/NV/FL/TX/WV/MT/IN go D, MO/ND/TN go R (I...dont know what that ends up being)

That would be D+1 and a 50/50 split. 

I feel like after all the hullabaloo about the Senate, there are really just three races I'm really unsure about - AZ, IN and MO.  I am not nearly as optimistic about TX as some posters here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got back from voting in NoVA. Pretty sure this is roughly the same time of day I voted in governor/state leg. races last year, and turnout seems much higher this year. I moved after 2016 though, so I don't have a comparison to that year or to 2014.

On the one hand, I'm a bit surprised turnout was so high considering we don't have any truly competitive elections (I'm in Beyer's district, not Comstock). On the other hand, the NoVA suburbs are basically ground-zero for both Democratic resistance and the NeverTrumpers who actually act on their beliefs, both of whom despise Cory Stewart, the Republican senate candidate.

ETA: Even with the higher turnout, I was in line for maybe 5 minutes tops. Arlington is really on top of things when it comes to collecting votes (less so on counting them, though they were faster than usual in 2017).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

They are would be challenged almost immediately.  The Constitution cannot be amended by mere legislation or EO.  Any such action should be slapped down hard.

but its not an amendment to the Constitution if his EO is clarifying that illegal immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of the United States but are acting as foreign agents, and therefore, children between 2 illegal immigrants are not citizens by right of being born in the United States. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

That would be D+1 and a 50/50 split.

Maybe a bit optimistic then, but I really think there are some infrequent voters that are turning out this election.

I hope for a 50/50 split so that someone like Murkowski can be convinced to switch or caucus with the Democrats (lets not bring up Collin's, eh?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I feel like after all the hullabaloo about the Senate, there are really just three races I'm really unsure about - AZ, IN and MO. 

The litany of Florida polls looked yesterday looked really good, but more for Gillum than Nelson.  Think that one's still up in the air.  As is Nevada in my eyes.  Otherwise, yeah.

6 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

but its not an amendment to the Constitution if his EO is clarifying that illegal immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of the United States but are acting as foreign agents, and therefore, children between 2 illegal immigrants are not citizens by right of being born in the United States. 

Again, this is a question for the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well yeah, it wouldn’t be outright undoing birthright citizenship, but it would be the next best thing if you think it should be banned. And as far as legal challenges goes, I really can’t say how that would play out. I think the key would be establishing standing. After that, all bets are off. Lastly, Trump is sending 5,000 to 15,000 troops to the boarder based on national security claims that are totally bogus. I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t try to do the same with birthright citizenship. It’s not like reality has ever governed his decision making process.

I agree, though I fear at some point Trump will go full Andrew Jackson and tell the courts to shove it. What happens if the courts rule it unconstitutional and Trump simply ignores them?  

Trump going full Andrew Jackson has worried me for two years.  If he does he will burn some of his supporters who think he pulls stunts like the EO for dramatic effect.  I think that’s why he has refrained from the “Full Jackson” so far.  We will see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Interesting. I'm in the UWS and when I voted in 2016, it was similar though I waited maybe 10 minutes then.

I had a similar experience in 2016.  Last year, for the mayor's race, I waltzed right in.  I have a colleague in Brooklyn who has been on line for 2 hours.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Trump going full Andrew Jackson has worried me for two years.  If he does he will burn some of his supporters who think he pulls stunts like the EO for dramatic effect.  I think that’s why he has refrained from the “Full Jackson” so far.  We will see.

Well, he's been ignoring the court order to reunite the families he separated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I hope for a 50/50 split so that someone like Murkowski can be convinced to switch or caucus with the Democrats (lets not bring up Collin's, eh?)

Yeah.  I personally think that 50/50 is about as good as the Democrats can hope for, and better than I expect.  I agree that recruiting Murkowski is not out of the question. 

NOTE: LOTS OF SPECULATION HERE.  If the night is going well for Democrats in the Senate and 50/50 tie is really in play, it would make the Alaska Governors and House races suddenly a lot more interesting.  If Democrats were able to win either one, it would provide Murkowski more cover for a potential switch. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

but its not an amendment to the Constitution if his EO is clarifying that illegal immigrants are not under the jurisdiction of the United States but are acting as foreign agents, and therefore, children between 2 illegal immigrants are not citizens by right of being born in the United States. 

How can they not be under the Jurisdiction of the United States... if they are inside the United States and are not protected by Diplomatic Immunity.  Such a statement would be nonsensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Again, this is a question for the courts.

It is indeed, and one that will most likely go to the Supreme Court, as if President Trump would issue such an EO, it would be challenged in court the day he signed it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...