US Politics- Roger Stoned to Death

[DMC]

Just now, IheartIheartTesla said:

so its reasonable to ask whether there is a non-trivial probability that Trump wins the EC, but Dems hold the House and retake the Senate. That would definitely soften the blow of a second Trump presidency some. I think it is somewhat likely but not an overwhelming probability

I think it's a possibility Trump wins the EC and the Dems take the Senate, sure, but I'd put the chances at less than 5 percent.

[argonak]

Just now, IheartIheartTesla said:

There appears to be a fair bit of vote splitting going on, so its reasonable to ask whether there is a non-trivial probability that Trump wins the EC, but Dems hold the House and retake the Senate. That would definitely soften the blow of a second Trump presidency some. I think it is somewhat likely but not an overwhelming probability

In my opinion that is about the worst thing that could happen.  Trump has already shown that he has zero respect for the checks and balances.  He would simply be further emboldened without having to pay lip service to the rest of the GOP in the Senate.  And without them to backstop him, he'd just do what he wants.  i doubt there's any scenario where the democrats get enough seats to actually remove him from office, so we'd just see Trump do more and more extreme things to get his way until the whole system fell apart.

[DMC]

Just now, argonak said:

In my opinion that is about the worst thing that could happen.  Trump has already shown that he has zero respect for the checks and balances.

If nothing else it would curb his judicial nominations.

[argonak]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

If nothing else it would curb his judicial nominations.

Or he would just declare that they were judges and we could start that particular constitutional crisis.  Congress has been proved to have no method of enforcement.  At this point the President can pretty much do whatever he wants, if he really really wants to.  What are they going to do, send the Sergeant at Arms to arrest the President?  Have to get past the Secret Service first.

[S John]

1 hour ago, argonak said:

The biggest reason is that your actions define you, not the results of your actions.   By actively participating in the democratic process you define a portion of your contribution to your society.  If you don't. . . you don't. 

Or how about do you only do what's right when it affects things?  Or do you do the right thing even when it doesn't make a difference?

Or how about the fact that the presidential election isn't the only damn thing on the ballot.  What about Mayors, Judges, sheriffs, all the other things on the ballot that affect you even more locally?

There's a lot other reasons, but those are the big ones to me personally.

I agree with you but I also think there is at least a small practical reason to vote no matter what. People love data and analysis and looking at the numbers of how many people voted for each candidate, even in safe states, could help to inform the direction of policy. Maybe just a tiny bit. I feel like margin of victory could be a good indicator of whether or not policy platforms are hitting home or not. I’m currently in a state that is likely pretty safe for Biden but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to help run up the score. I’ll take any victory at all, but I think that in this election an emphatic victory is more important than its ever been - if we can get it.

Imagine Trump isn’t just defeated but is crushed, routed. I don’t know how to send a clearer picture to the Republicans that there’s no winnable national path without going back to the drawing board and finding a way to edge back towards sanity. A close loss doesn’t do much to dissuade them from current behaviors, IMO. You don’t want their strategists to be thinking ‘ah well, we’ll get em next time!’ you want them to be thinking ‘wow, we can’t keep going like this.’

That’s my incentive to vote anyway. I can help, at least in my state, to run up the score. I’m showing up to spike the football and do and end zone dance. 

re: advertising - I have seen several Biden commercials during football games, both college and NFL. I would guess that if the election were only ‘football fans’ Trump would likely win, but it’s a large audience and probably an expensive slot so I was glad to see Biden’s face instead of Trump.

[Maithanet]

18 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I was just about to post that SC poll. Note that Trump is only running +6 in SC per Qpac, so it isn't that hard to see their polls showing a very competitive Senate race. At any rate, its good to see Graham squirm after he hitched his wagon to Trump (seriously, after being a McCain friend for so long, it makes no sense to me).

Other polls out of SC show slightly better news for Graham, but those were in August. Anyway, regarding Collins I think she's in real trouble.

Trump being up 6 in SC seems believable.  He won it in 2016 by 14 points, and that was without a competitive senate race bringing Dems to the polls.  Plus, SC has a fair number of college educated Republicans who might be ready to flip. 

11 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

There appears to be a fair bit of vote splitting going on, so its reasonable to ask whether there is a non-trivial probability that Trump wins the EC, but Dems hold the House and retake the Senate. That would definitely soften the blow of a second Trump presidency some. I think it is somewhat likely but not an overwhelming probability

It's not impossible, but it is very, very unlikely.  Remember that if Trump wins, they need 51 seats, just winning NC+ME+CO+AZ wouldn't do it (unless Jones hangs on...).  Trump would have to improve ~ 4 points across the board to squeak out an EC victory.  At that point Cunningham probably loses unless NC is unusually competitive (it was 3 points more Republican than the tipping point state in 2016).  So Democrats need to go 4/4 in their pickup opportunities, PLUS pick up one of the reach opportunities in SC/MT/KS/IA, all while Trump is overperforming?  I don't see how that is possible.

[argonak]

1 minute ago, S John said:

I agree with you but I also think there is at least a small practical reason to vote no matter what. People love data and analysis and looking at the numbers of how many people voted for each candidate, even in safe states, could help to inform the direction of policy. Maybe just a tiny bit. I feel like margin of victory could be a good indicator of whether or not policy platforms are hitting home or not. I’m currently in a state that is likely pretty safe for Biden but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to help run up the score. I’ll take any victory at all, but I think that in this election an emphatic victory is more important than its ever been - if we can get it.

Imagine Trump isn’t just defeated but is crushed, routed. I don’t know how to send a clearer picture to the Republicans that there’s no winnable national path without going back to the drawing board and finding a way to edge back towards sanity. A close loss doesn’t do much to dissuade them from current behaviors, IMO. You don’t want their strategists to be thinking ‘ah well, we’ll get em next time!’ you want them to be thinking ‘wow, we can’t keep going like this.’

That’s my incentive to vote anyway. I can help, at least in my state, to run up the score. I’m showing up to spike the football and do and end zone dance. 

re: advertising - I have seen several Biden commercials during football games, both college and NFL. I would guess that if the election were only ‘football fans’ Trump would likely win, but it’s a large audience and probably an expensive slot so I was glad to see Biden’s face instead of Trump.

That is a good reason to vote.  

I don't think you can send any messages to the GOP, they've been completely taken over by the Trump Cult..  They're electing insane fringe conspiracy theorists now, and the people they appoint to leadership positions go on facebook and rant about secret cabals (just like dear leader). 

The rational part of the party has either fled or is holding the Trump tiger by the tail.  I don't have any sympathy for them, they fed that tiger, poked its bars, pointed at their "enemies" and opened the cage door.  The fact that it turns around and eats them too sometimes is only a tiny taste of karma.

[DMC]

Just now, argonak said:

Or he would just declare that they were judges and we could start that particular constitutional crisis. 

I meant future nominations.  If they aren't confirmed by the Senate they don't get to serve, there is no constitutional crisis there.  Presidents can get around this with Cabinet and Senate-confirmable executive officials - and Trump has abused that quite thoroughly even with a GOP Senate - but there's no way to do that with judges.

2 minutes ago, argonak said:

At this point the President can pretty much do whatever he wants, if he really really wants to.  What are they going to do, send the Sergeant at Arms to arrest the President?  Have to get past the Secret Service first.

This is a rather ridiculous statement.  Trump can't do whatever he wants.  He has broad authority with controlling federal law enforcement and obviously foreign policy, but he already can't get any legislation through.  In terms of his unilateral action, he's pretty much par for the course in terms of pushing the envelope on EOs.  The only thing he's done that's extraordinary there is deregulation (although Reagan did that too).  Trump gets away with a shitload of shit, sure, but it's absurd to suggest he can do anything he wants if he really really wants to.  That doesn't reflect reality.

[S John]

4 minutes ago, argonak said:

That is a good reason to vote.  

I don't think you can send any messages to the GOP, they've been completely taken over by the Trump Cult.. 

For now, yes. But one of many reasons I’m hoping for a convincing Biden victory is to observe how quickly Republicans distance themselves from Trump. I think if he can be held to a single term he’ll be viewed as a failure, even among Republicans, rather than a Reaganesque figure.

[Maithanet]

12 minutes ago, S John said:

Imagine Trump isn’t just defeated but is crushed, routed. I don’t know how to send a clearer picture to the Republicans that there’s no winnable national path without going back to the drawing board and finding a way to edge back towards sanity. A close loss doesn’t do much to dissuade them from current behaviors, IMO. You don’t want their strategists to be thinking ‘ah well, we’ll get em next time!’ you want them to be thinking ‘wow, we can’t keep going like this.’

Agreed 100%.  This election is maddening, because Trump's Electoral College advantage throws everything out of line.  If Biden wins the popular vote by 3, it could easily be Trump 279, Biden 259.  If Biden holds more or less steady at +7, then it's probably Biden 335, Trump 203.  Not exactly a blowout, that's basically Obama 2012.  But if Biden beats his polls by just a little bit, say 2 points, that could realistically go to Biden 413, Trump 125 (that's all the swing states plus TX, OH, IA and GA).  At that point, it would be safe to say that Trump didn't just lose, he was firmly rejected.  I've no doubt that a portion of the Republican party will want to continue down the anti-science, quasi-fascist path, I also think there's a group that would abandon Trump as a loser very quickly and want to go a different way. 

Which of those factions will emerge victorious in steering the Republican party of the 2020s?  Hard to be optimistic about that, but at least there would be a chance that Republicans like Hogan and Romney might have real influence, rather than than the current crew of grifters. 

[IheartIheartTesla]

23 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

 At that point Cunningham probably loses unless NC is unusually competitive (it was 3 points more Republican than the tipping point state in 2016).  So Democrats need to go 4/4 in their pickup opportunities, PLUS pick up one of the reach opportunities in SC/MT/KS/IA, all while Trump is overperforming?  I don't see how that is possible.

I agree it looks difficult (although I'd throw in GA as well in the list). I would note that some of the Senate candidates are running worse than Trump (like Graham and I think Tillis to a certain extent), so it would be a fine needle to thread. The best you could hope for is a tie

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I agree it looks difficult (although I'd throw in GA as well in the list). I would note that some of the Senate candidates are running worse than Trump (like Graham and I think Tillis to a certain extent), so it would be a fine needle to thread. The best you could hope for is a tie

I'm pretty pessimistic about GA just because of the 50% rule they have.  Although I suppose in the event that Trump wins reelection and the Georgia Senate race is determining Senate control, then MAYBE Democrats could get motivated to show up while some Republicans either rest on their laurels or accept another check on Trump being an OK thing.    I doubt it, but I suppose it's not impossible. 

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I've no doubt that a portion of the Republican party will want to continue down the anti-science, quasi-fascist path, I also think there's a group that would abandon Trump as a loser very quickly and want to go a different way. 

If there's one thing the modern GOP is consistent about, it's about disposing their leaders once they're no longer of any use.  I don't, however, think that will alter the extreme rightward shift of the GOP.  If anything there will be plenty of those on the right that will assert Trump didn't go far enough.

13 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm pretty pessimistic about GA just because of the 50% rule they have.

Agreed, was gonna say the same thing.  I find it doubtful a Dem can get to 50%, especially due to the depressed turnout in runoffs and, in this case, Trump not being on the ballot.

[Maithanet]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

If there's one thing the modern GOP is consistent about, it's about disposing their leaders once they're no longer of any use.  I don't, however, think that will alter the extreme rightward shift of the GOP.  If anything there will be plenty of those on the right that will assert Trump didn't go far enough.

There will definitely be a faction that say that, and also a faction that will no doubt agree with Trump that the election was stolen and any Democratic victory is fraudulent.  I am hoping that the other faction can wrestle them into line at least to some extent.  I know this is a faint hope, but what else can we do but hope?  No matter how decisively Trump is defeated, the GOP will regain power eventually.  And if they keep moving further and further right, that is a recipe for rigged elections, civil war, authoritarianism, etc.  It might not be too long before we're saying "At least with TRUMP he had some respect for the courts, this guy on the other hand..."

[argonak]

16 minutes ago, DMC said:

I meant future nominations.  If they aren't confirmed by the Senate they don't get to serve, there is no constitutional crisis there.  Presidents can get around this with Cabinet and Senate-confirmable executive officials - and Trump has abused that quite thoroughly even with a GOP Senate - but there's no way to do that with judges.

This is a rather ridiculous statement.  Trump can't do whatever he wants.  He has broad authority with controlling federal law enforcement and obviously foreign policy, but he already can't get any legislation through.  In terms of his unilateral action, he's pretty much par for the course in terms of pushing the envelope on EOs.  The only thing he's done that's extraordinary there is deregulation (although Reagan did that too).  Trump gets away with a shitload of shit, sure, but it's absurd to suggest he can do anything he wants if he really really wants to.  That doesn't reflect reality.

Perhaps I merely worry too much.  But who is going to stop him?  He regularly ignores laws already.  What's to stop him from going further?  

To be really hyperbolic, what if Trump murdered Nancy Pelosi in the Whitehouse on live TV.  Who is going to arrest him?  Who is going to try him?  Who is going to convict him?  If the GOP wants to keep him in power, and they just ignore everything what happens?  Because that's what happens when they break laws right now.  Nothing.  Nothing happens.  Or if Trump tomorrow said Ted Cruz was on now the Supreme Court.  Wrote some executive order.  And Ted Cruz started showing up to the court, what happens?  If the Republicans on the SC say "yes, he's now on the SC, he's with us."  What happens?  The Left leaning court members stop showing up, but then the SC just meets anyway?  

So much of our society relied on people following norms.  There's only one real method of enforcement for breaking those norms it turns out, and it happens once every four years.

[argonak]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

If there's one thing the modern GOP is consistent about, it's about disposing their leaders once they're no longer of any use.  I don't, however, think that will alter the extreme rightward shift of the GOP.  If anything there will be plenty of those on the right that will assert Trump didn't go far enough.

Agreed, was gonna say the same thing.  I find it doubtful a Dem can get to 50%, especially due to the depressed turnout in runoffs and, in this case, Trump not being on the ballot.

I'm not so sure they'll dump Trump.  He's become this weird iconic figure for them.  Not even Reagan had it like this.  Its like religion to some of them.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I know this is a faint hope, but what else can we do but hope?  No matter how decisively Trump is defeated, the GOP will regain power eventually.  And if they keep moving further and further right, that is a recipe for rigged elections, civil war, authoritarianism, etc.  It might not be too long before we're saying "At least with TRUMP he had some respect for the courts, this guy on the other hand..."

Yeah....I think the only hope, longterm, is to render the GOP inert.  If they keep minimizing their reelection strategy to uneducated white people, I think there's more hope in another party arising than there is for the GOP to actually cease its rightward shift.

3 minutes ago, argonak said:

But who is going to stop him?  He regularly ignores laws already.  What's to stop him from going further?  

Like I said, I agree he gets away with a shitload, i.e. regularly ignoring laws, that's undeniable.  Other than abuse of federal law enforcement and the presidents potential to have wide breadth in foreign policy (albeit Trump hasn't really used that..yet), he is stopped from his worst impulses - often by his own party in Congress.  Certainly he'll be stopped by Dems holding both chambers.

6 minutes ago, argonak said:

If the GOP wants to keep him in power, and they just ignore everything what happens?  Because that's what happens when they break laws right now.  Nothing.  Nothing happens.  Or if Trump tomorrow said Ted Cruz was on now the Supreme Court.  Wrote some executive order.  And Ted Cruz started showing up to the court, what happens?  If the Republicans on the SC say "yes, he's now on the SC, he's with us."  What happens?  The Left leaning court members stop showing up, but then the SC just meets anyway?  

Again, this is fantasy land.  Elections stop him from keeping him in power.  That's why we need to make sure he loses convincingly.  As for appointing Ted Cruz to the SC with an EO, uh...no.  That's fucking beyond absurd.  Even the conservative justices would get the Marshals to remove him.  You think Thomas is going to let someone sit on his court without getting confirmed after what he went through?

8 minutes ago, argonak said:

So much of our society relied on people following norms.

What you're referring to aren't norms, they're laws.  And moreover, constitutional law.

8 minutes ago, argonak said:

I'm not so sure they'll dump Trump.  He's become this weird iconic figure for them.  Not even Reagan had it like this.  Its like religion to some of them.

Not so sure about that if he loses reelection.  The authoritarian personality that's attracted to Trump does not like losers.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

30 minutes ago, argonak said:

I'm not so sure they'll dump Trump.  He's become this weird iconic figure for them.  Not even Reagan had it like this.  Its like religion to some of them.

 

28 minutes ago, DMC said:

Like I said, I agree he gets away with a shitload, i.e. regularly ignoring laws, that's undeniable.  Other than abuse of federal law enforcement and the presidents potential to have wide breadth in foreign policy (albeit Trump hasn't really used that..yet), he is stopped from his worst impulses - often by his own party in Congress.  Certainly he'll be stopped by Dems holding both chambers.

Reagan is a religious figure for them now. Dunno if that was always the case.

Anyway, the most important thing is. Trump must under no circumstances be pardoned by his successor. He just has to stand trial for his crimes. Yes, for them he will become a martyr, but those are lost anyway. The important thing is, that a public trial, should also tarnish all those GOP Senators and enablers that shielded him. Also release the Muller report with as few redactions as possible. The entire shame has to be out there in the light of day. A convict will look less good on that pedestal.

30 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah....I think the only hope, longterm, is to render the GOP inert.  If they keep minimizing their reelection strategy to uneducated white people, I think there's more hope in another party arising than there is for the GOP to actually cease its rightward shift.

The GOP has to be defeated repeatedly, until the last one of them is out. Which will probably not be happening to Cotton, because of his very safe seat.

[argonak]

38 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yeah....I think the only hope, longterm, is to render the GOP inert.  If they keep minimizing their reelection strategy to uneducated white people, I think there's more hope in another party arising than there is for the GOP to actually cease its rightward shift.

Like I said, I agree he gets away with a shitload, i.e. regularly ignoring laws, that's undeniable.  Other than abuse of federal law enforcement and the presidents potential to have wide breadth in foreign policy (albeit Trump hasn't really used that..yet), he is stopped from his worst impulses - often by his own party in Congress.  Certainly he'll be stopped by Dems holding both chambers.

Again, this is fantasy land.  Elections stop him from keeping him in power.  That's why we need to make sure he loses convincingly.  As for appointing Ted Cruz to the SC with an EO, uh...no.  That's fucking beyond absurd.  Even the conservative justices would get the Marshals to remove him.  You think Thomas is going to let someone sit on his court without getting confirmed after what he went through?

What you're referring to aren't norms, they're laws.  And moreover, constitutional law.

Not so sure about that if he loses reelection.  The authoritarian personality that's attracted to Trump does not like losers.

Man I hope you're right.  I get too spun up sometimes.  But I live in a part of washington with a lot of the "wealthy suburb" style Trump voters, and they're just in their own fantasy land.  My neighbor kept telling me how Seattle was just in total chaos and destruction, and how we had to be ready for when "antifa" came to attack our homes.  And this is a person who you would otherwise consider to be quite intelligent and cool headed within his career.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm sorry to hear about your situation, but your solution seems counter-productive. Backing politicians who promise you the stars and the moon with no real plan to achieve them are doing you a greater disservice than the incrementalists. They aren't your allies either if you need something to actually happen. They're giving you a false sense of hope. 

As far as lacking empathy and a willingness to fight for others, spare me. You have no evidence to make such claims. Someone who lacks empathy isn't going to work with children with special needs and someone who won't fight for others isn't going to work +12 hours a day, everyday, to get good politicians in office and then work on legislation to improve people's lives.

Stop being unnecessarily hostile to people who are mostly like minded to you, for starters. The actual differences between a Biden and Sanders Administration with regards to healthcare would most likely be minor, and Biden may actually have a better chance of expanding it further than Sanders could, especially if we still have a divided government.

Yeah, hm, seems familiar to claiming that I ever rooted against Clinton. There is literally no evidence of that. I've always said she is highly qualified and would be a fine President. I've recently said I'd happily take her over Biden. So you're kind of making shit up too. Sucks, right?