Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: Locking Up the Vote!

Recommended Posts

Useful to read AP's FAQ on Election Day and how races are called, exit polls, etc. They assume over 50% of the electorate will be voting early this year,as compared to 43% in the mid-term election in 2018. 

@Fez Agree with you on the three conservative judges who are not likely to cross that particular Rubicon unless the facts are overwhelmingly in favor of Trump, assuming a very large popular vote gap in Biden's favor. And I think Trump's statements about Barrett, suggesting he wants her installed to protect him, may be overplaying his hand with her, IMO. Best way to show she owes no allegiance is to vote against him early on, especially a vote that consigns him to defeat. 

Thomas and Alito seem almost like foregone conclusions, sad to say.

Edited by Ran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Fez said:

And the conservatives on SCOTUS have no incentive to overturn clear election results. They already have a 6-3 majority, all they'd accomplish is destroy their own authority forever and possibly also trigger a literal civil war. I don't see Roberts, Kavanaugh, or Gorsuch going for that.

No, but they can stop counting votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Fez said:

As always, folks here are vastly overestimating the competence, and unity, of the Republicans.

In a close election, sure, anything goes. If its a landslide anywhere close to what the polls show, Trump's going to be dumped by most of them so fast it'll make heads spin. He'll stomp and scream, and be gone in Jan. 

And the conservatives on SCOTUS have no incentive to overturn clear election results. They already have a 6-3 majority, all they'd accomplish is destroy their own authority forever and possibly also trigger a literal civil war. I don't see Roberts, Kavanaugh, or Gorsuch going for that.

You do see the contradiction in this statement, my friend? You can't doubt their unity then just accept it. And their unity is real, as in they're unified to slam through a really awful Supreme Court nominee. And that 6-3 court will find a lot of ways to find five votes to vote in unity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

No, but they can stop counting votes.

No, they can't. Even if they wanted to, by the time the courts process an injunction the votes will be counted. People vastly overestimate how long the vote counting will take. California will take forever, but at most that'll change a handful of house race outcomes. Same for New York. That's it.

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You do see the contradiction in this statement, my friend? You can't doubt their unity then just accept it. And their unity is real, as in they're unified to slam through a really awful Supreme Court nominee. And that 6-3 court will find a lot of ways to find five votes to vote in unity. 

You're so far down the conspiracy rabbit hole that words have lost meaning to you. The Supreme Court is not the Republican Party, despite so many people wishing it were so. They do often help each other, but the Supreme Court is not going to risk it all to save the GOP with no benefit to itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme Court isn't in charge of vote counting, states are. There's a long and labored process for an issue to even reach the Supreme Court. The only way they will get to decide the election is if it hinges on a single, Republican-ruled state (as in 2000), which is highly unlikely.

Edited by Gorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fez said:

You're so far down the conspiracy rabbit hole that words have lost meaning to you. The Supreme Court is not the Republican Party, despite so many people wishing it were so. 

How so? Is it a conspiracy rabbit hole to say The Federalist Society vets most conservative judges? 

And no, but the Republican Party members on it are still Republicans, just like the Democratic Party members on it are still Democrats. This notion that Justices are some how above politics is one of the silliest things ever. 
 

Quote

They do often help each other, but the Supreme Court is not going to risk it all to save the GOP with no benefit to itself.

Would a conservative court rule, even without much to stand on, to create an environment that maintains a conservative court, or would they begrudgingly hand it to liberals? Which outcome is more likely? 

The right has been stuffing the courts with de facto politicians for years now. Why deny what's right in front of you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

In states like FL, there may be tampering with the standards for counting ballots.  PA's get a witness to sign your ballot envelope thing (or is it the secrecy envelope?) might lead to Biden losing PA through some dodgy disqualified votes.

Florida makes me queasy as always, but overturning PA results where Biden may have an approximately ~5% lead is not easy to accomplish (the state also happens to be Democrat led). Not easy to disqualify that many votes disproportionately in favor of Republicans. Unfortunately PA isnt reported rejected ballot rates yet, so we have to wait and see.

NC had an ~2% rejection rate that was disproportionately affecting AA voters, and that may yet be the case across the nation. But the numbers are still not (yet) reaching the levels where they would overturn results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

NC had an ~2% rejection rate that was disproportionately affecting AA voters, and that may yet be the case across the nation. But the numbers are still not (yet) reaching the levels where they would overturn results.

AA voters are also not embracing absentee ballots at the same rate as other Democrats.  And this is definitely at least partly because they are concerned about their votes getting thrown out.  Generally AA voters have good turnout in early in-person voting, and we're seeing that in Georgia, North Carolina and Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Florida makes me queasy as always, but overturning PA results where Biden may have an approximately ~5% lead is not easy to accomplish (the state also happens to be Democrat led).

Comforting thought. 

Btw, I thought the piece Ran shared a few days ago by Brian Beutler about how to deal with Republican bad faith in a Biden administration was excellent. 

One important lesson, not mentioned there is that this time around Dems should not invite Rs to play in government camp. 

Obama appointed Rs twice at Defense, appointed a Republican as FBI director, made a Republican member of Congress his secretary of transport and appointed Jon Huntsman ambassador to China.  In return Rs repeatedly acted in bad faith throughout his presidency (including in ACA negotiations), killed Merrick Garland's nomination and unrelentingly attacked him throughout his presidency.  It wasn't just Comey's shenanigans with Hillary Clinton's investigation (although that is reason enough).  Even Bob Gates knifed Obama in his memoir. 

These were important positions that could have groomed the next generation of leadership for Dems.  Biden maybe can appoint an early and prominent never-trumper to his cabinet (of the 2015-6 vintage not most of the Johnny come latelies).  Hold out the pretence of being willing to work with congressional Republicans (so you can abolish the filibuster when they show their true colors on DACA, climate change, guns etc.). 

But that's it.  Fuck the organized Republican party.  Fuck the Ben Sasses of this world.  Punish them at every turn.  When push came to shove, they chose Trump.  

Edited by Gaston de Foix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, Lara Trump on CNN, in response to Jake Tapper asking why her father-in-law isn’t toning down the rhetoric against the governor of Michigan: he was just having fun, it was a rally, it was light hearted fun.

And “why would you compare us to Canada, compare our Covid-19 response to Europe where we have done much better”.

Lol!

 

Edited by Fragile Bird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

The right has been stuffing the courts with de facto politicians for years now. Why deny what's right in front of you?

Yes.

 

2 hours ago, Gorn said:

Supreme Court isn't in charge of vote counting, states are. There's a long and labored process for an issue to even reach the Supreme Court. The only way they will get to decide the election is if it hinges on a single, Republican-ruled state (as in 2000), which is highly unlikely.

In 2000, the process was quick enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Lol, Lara Trump on CNN, in response to Jake Tapper asking why her father-in-law isn’t toning down the rhetoric against the governor of Michigan: he was just having fun, it was a rally, it was light hearted fun.

And “why would you compare us to Canada, compare our Covid-19 response to Europe where we have done much better”.

Lol!

 

Did Tapper do a fact-check?

Also, "Why NOT Canada?!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ran said:

Useful to read AP's FAQ on Election Day and how races are called, exit polls, etc. They assume over 50% of the electorate will be voting early this year,as compared to 43% in the mid-term election in 2018. 

@Fez Agree with you on the three conservative judges who are not likely to cross that particular Rubicon unless the facts are overwhelmingly in favor of Trump, assuming a very large popular vote gap in Biden's favor. And I think Trump's statements about Barrett, suggesting he wants her installed to protect him, may be overplaying his hand with her, IMO. Best way to show she owes no allegiance is to vote against him early on, especially a vote that consigns him to defeat. 

Thomas and Alito seem almost like foregone conclusions, sad to say.

No judge wants to be remembered the way Julius Hoffman is remembered. Especially if you are on the highest level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Lol, Lara Trump on CNN, in response to Jake Tapper asking why her father-in-law isn’t toning down the rhetoric against the governor of Michigan: he was just having fun, it was a rally, it was light hearted fun.

And “why would you compare us to Canada, compare our Covid-19 response to Europe where we have done much better”.

Lol!

 

This response reminds me of a joke from Family guy: 

It’s all just a joke—if you’re criticizing a conservative’s message.

But if you agree with the message it’s okay to take it seriously and act accordingly.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

In 2000, the process was quick enough.

Let's recall what actually happened in 2000. Bush v. Gore ended up in front of the Supreme Court due to a combination of local Republican officials being partisan (but still within bounds of the law), and a stupid unforced mistake by Gore campaign (only demanding recount in specific counties). The actual legal case was ambiguous and could have been reasonably decided either way, and it happened a whole month after the election.

On the other hand, court deciding the election in favor of Trump due to votes not being counted would require:

- that the election comes down to a single state;

- that the state in question has Republican officials in charge of counting (not many swing states do) who are willing to break the law to get Trump elected;

- that the votes within that state are close enough that a court decision can make a difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pelosi: Covid-19 relief bill hinges on next 48 hours
She and Mnuchin plan to speak again Monday.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/18/pelosi-clarity-coronavirus-relief-430061

Quote

 

The months of back-and-forth talks between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to deliver a coronavirus relief bill before the Nov. 3 election may have come down to the final 48 hours.

Pelosi indicated Sunday that the White House has less than two days to finalize a deal with Democrats to have any chance of muscling through a trillion-dollar-plus bill before the election.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gorn said:

Let's recall what actually happened in 2000. Bush v. Gore ended up in front of the Supreme Court due to a combination of local Republican officials being partisan (but still within bounds of the law), and a stupid unforced mistake by Gore campaign (only demanding recount in specific counties). The actual legal case was ambiguous and could have been reasonably decided either way, and it happened a whole month after the election.

On the other hand, court deciding the election in favor of Trump due to votes not being counted would require:

- that the election comes down to a single state;

- that the state in question has Republican officials in charge of counting (not many swing states do) who are willing to break the law to get Trump elected;

- that the votes within that state are close enough that a court decision can make a difference.

Well said. The states to watch are Florida and Ohio. Those states count absentee ballots as they come in so we will know before bedtime who won those states. If Biden wins either he will be the winner as there will be no mathematically plausible path will be open to Trump regardless how the dozen or states that are not allowed to count early go. If he wins both he probably has 270 before those dozen states  begin tallying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DMC said:

So I know this is pretty old news (a whole four days!), but I didn't come across the following quote until reading this article:

Can't stop chuckling.  It's like, who are you actually trying to appeal to with this?  Pretty sure he's just trying to lock up the incel vote.  "Why don't you like me?  I saved your ass!  God you're a b...!!!"

And this is just a narrative I am baffled by. What is he talking about? When were the suburban neighborhoods in danger? I might have missed it, but does this claim have a root in something (aside from the "Great" days of America when white people were terrified of people of color moving into their neighborhoods)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

And this is just a narrative I am baffled by. What is he talking about? When were the suburban neighborhoods in danger? I might have missed it, but does this claim have a root in something (aside from the "Great" days of America when white people were terrified of people of color moving into their neighborhoods)?

He's refering to when he prevented social housing programs i the suburbs.. . I forgot the details. Poor people would have moved there>> brown people >> crime and anarchy.

Edited by Mindwalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...