Mindwalker Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 Yes, I do know what commission means. And I hope they 'll find those scholars. I still think offering real bipartisanship at this point is wrong, but whatever. PS: My tone is not directed at posters, I'm just nnerved after an hour or so of Twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 2 minutes ago, Mindwalker said: I'm just nnerved after an hour or so of Twitter. Well that'll do it. Anyway, in terms of the legal community - particularly legal scholars - there is broad consensus for the dire need to expand the judiciary across the ideological spectrum. Not uniformly at the SC level, but at least in terms of the circuit courts. I don't see much reason to be concerned with including right-leaning scholars in a commission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 NYT/Siena just ran a Kansas poll that shows Trump up +7, which is pretty poor for him considering he won by 20 points in 2016. Its a high quality pollster, but even if they are off by 3-4 points its way worse than he did in 2016. The Senate race is a bit more competitive according to them, but I dont think it'll happen for the Dems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 As a viewing experience, I've no doubt this will be more enjoyable than the actual debate: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 21 minutes ago, DMC said: Well that'll do it. Anyway, in terms of the legal community - particularly legal scholars - there is broad consensus for the dire need to expand the judiciary across the ideological spectrum. Not uniformly at the SC level, but at least in terms of the circuit courts. I don't see much reason to be concerned with including right-leaning scholars in a commission. You actually need right-leaning scholars on it. What you can't have is right wing "scholars." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 18 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said: NYT/Siena just ran a Kansas poll that shows Trump up +7, which is pretty poor for him considering he won by 20 points in 2016. Its a high quality pollster, but even if they are off by 3-4 points its way worse than he did in 2016. The Senate race is a bit more competitive according to them, but I dont think it'll happen for the Dems. Just listening right now to an interview with a dude from Siena talking about polling and the election. One interesting thing he mentioned was that in 2016, 20% of likely voters had an unfavorable opinion of both candidates, where as this year it's only 5%. More importantly, the guy keeps pronouncing 2016 as "two sixteen". @DMC is this normal for pollsters and academics studying polls and if so what the fuck is wrong with all of you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 46 minutes ago, DMC said: At least for the presidential race, I'd say almost all the polls today look pretty good. His national numbers are ticking down, but that actually reassures me as the disparity between the national and swing state numbers was beginning to suggest there was something systemically off. Only bad poll I can think of is Morning Consult having Trump up 1 in AZ. The polls the past two days have really confirmed that Biden is ahead ~9 points, based on both national and state level polling. I have no problem with the national polls coming down from +10 to +9, so long as the state polls aren't moving, and they aren't. The Morning Consult polls were, on the whole, awesome for Biden. Comfortably ahead in MI, WI, PA and FL and narrowly ahead in a few more swing states. If those polls were spot on I'd happily accept losing AZ (they have Kelly winning anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindwalker Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 23 minutes ago, JEORDHl said: As a viewing experience, I've no doubt this will be more enjoyable than the actual debate: I think he'd make a fine press secretary. Too lowly for his aspirations? Maybe, but he recently said he'd be happy to serve a Biden/ Harris admin either from the inside or outside, so... C.J. Buttigieg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said: @DMC is this normal for pollsters and academics studying polls and if so what the fuck is wrong with all of you LOL, not that I'm aware of. There's still plenty wrong with us I can't explain, to be sure. 4 minutes ago, Maithanet said: The Morning Consult polls were, on the whole, awesome for Biden. Agreed, I was quite encouraged other than the AZ number. 2 minutes ago, Mindwalker said: I think he'd make a fine press secretary. Too lowly for his aaaaspirtions? Maybe, but he recently said he'd be happy to serv a Biden/ Harris admin either from the inside or outside, so... I'd put him at Veterans Affairs. He can still be a strong presence on TV for a potential Biden administration from that Cabinet post and, yeah, I'd think press secretary is too below his pay grade at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 154 million . That is a lot of voters, and that definitely makes me happy. If we assume that 2% will vote third party and Trump needs to be at least within 4 points to win the EC, Trump will need 72.4 million votes to become president. In 2016, he got 62.9 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGP Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 57 minutes ago, Mindwalker said: I think he'd make a fine press secretary. Too lowly for his aaaaspirtions? Maybe, but he recently said he'd be happy to serv a Biden/ Harris admin either from the inside or outside, so... He's a quick, creative scrapper and light on his feet-- definitely ideal for that position. Has Press Sec ever been a decent launch pad for a politician though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 1 minute ago, JEORDHl said: Has Press Sec ever been a decent launch pad for a politician though? No. The closest would be Stephanopoulos (who technically wasn't press secretary), who I suppose could have had a political future if he wanted after leaving the White House. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 Is he qualified for SecDef? Seems odd to ask about someone who ran for President, but IMO Veterans Affairs isn't much of a launching pad either. Defense, on the other hand, would definitely set him up for the WH, if that's what Biden wants to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 1 minute ago, Maithanet said: Is he qualified for SecDef? Not in my book, and I definitely suspect Biden to lean on people he's worked with for decades when it comes to key national security posts. You're right the VA isn't really known as any type of launch pad, but any Cabinet post can help in that regard - not like HUD is any more high profile but both Cuomo and Castro took detours there early in their political careers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 1 minute ago, Maithanet said: Is he qualified for SecDef? Seems odd to ask about someone who ran for President, but IMO Veterans Affairs isn't much of a launching pad either. Defense, on the other hand, would definitely set him up for the WH, if that's what Biden wants to do. The rumor I saw going around (no idea how credible it is), is that he was being slotted for UN Ambassador. Which, I think would be a good spot. In a normal administration its an important position, and if there's a second Biden term/first Harris term, he could get bumped up to something even higher profile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 Just now, Fez said: The rumor I saw going around (no idea how credible it is), is that he was being slotted for UN Ambassador. I've seen those rumors too but I don't buy them. Both because of what I said above - I think Biden's gonna want someone he's more familiar with there - and because if he's UN Ambassador he's not really gonna be able to be a TV advocate which is what everybody loves about him right now. He can still do that as VA Secretary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindwalker Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 A bit of DT at "60 Minutes" lying, contrasted with evidence to the contrary: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 The New York Times sources really need to clarify what the fuck "limited" means: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/10/22/us/trump-biden-debate-tonight#russia-poses-a-bigger-election-threat-than-iran-many-us-officials-say Quote Nonetheless, both the Iranian and the Russian activity could pave the way for “perception hacks,” which are intended to leave the impression that foreign powers have greater access to the voting system than they really do. Federal officials have warned for months that small breaches could be exaggerated to prompt inaccurate charges of widespread voter fraud. Officials say Russia’s ability to change vote tallies nationwide is limited. "Limited" does not mean "non existent." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 2 hours ago, Mindwalker said: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/10/21/1988505/-Michigan-tries-to-ban-guns-at-polling-places-but-some-far-right-sheriffs-say-they-won-t-enforce-it The threatening rhetoric by Michigan militiamen directed at state officials fueled a decision to ban open carry of firearms at polling places in the state this year. Some law-enforcement officers are saying they won't enforce it. I’m very thankful firearms are banned at SC polling places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 4 minutes ago, Fez said: The New York Times sources really need to clarify what the fuck "limited" means "Limited" obviously means limited to changing or discarding Democratic votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.