mrip541
Footballguy
After watching the last 2 confirmation hearings I think that's pretty clear.Are you saying the United States Supreme Court is corrupted?
After watching the last 2 confirmation hearings I think that's pretty clear.Are you saying the United States Supreme Court is corrupted?
The Republicans gained seats in the Senate in 2018.A little higher than before....... now at 80%
Trump lost the popular in 2016.
His Party took a bit hit across the country in 2018
Higher unemployment than when Obama left
250K dead with no end in sight.
Biden is immensely more likeable than Clinton.
Micro targeting, the youth sitting out and/or a higher turnout in minority voters for Trump could swing the election to him. I think he loses in the popular by more than he did in 2016 even if he wins the EC. Biden could be "William Wallaced at Falkirk" by the Sanders' Lords of the Left......but I think they're even getting in line.
Both candidates have a "vibe" that could point that they're going to win. Trump is drawing people with his rallies. Bidens ads (at least in SE PA) are very positive; extolling his virtues rather than Trumps deficiencies. POTUS fatigue (something I think the entire country is suffering from) immensely helps Biden.
I also think that the Barrett confirmation was a bit of a mistake for the R's/Trump. It should have been a carrot to get people to the polls. As it stands, I could see a lot of "on the fence" Republicans sitting this one out; smoking the metaphorical "post-coitus cigarette" in regards to ACB.....as they now have the ability to control the SC and don't really have a need for Trump's abrasiveness.
They had a good map. They got smoked in the house.The Republicans gained seats in the Senate in 2018.
There were millions more votes cast for the Democratic Party than the Republican Party in 2018.The Republicans gained seats in the Senate in 2018.
They did. Right after Trump won in 16, Republicans were salivating at 18; thinking it was going to be a huge night for the RNCThey had a good map. They got smoked in the house.
The Supreme Court isn't corrupt. The confirmation process has just become contentious political theatre. Instead of deciding on the worthiness and capability of the nominee to interpret the Constitution, it's become this insane partisan battle for a Justice to decide cases based on that party's political platform ideology. Amy Coney Barrett should have gotten 90+ confirmation votes. She is highly capable and worthy of being a SC Justice.After watching the last 2 confirmation hearings I think that's pretty clear.
Yes, and? House races are more localized so it doesn't paint a statewide picture. The Senate races show what a state is thinking because they encompass the whole state and not just districts. Also, in mid-term elections the party that loses the general usually does well because there isn't the same motivation by the winning party. Example in 2010 the Democrats lost 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats. Then in the next mid-term in 2014 they lost 13 House seats and 9 Senate seats. In Trumps first mid-term they lost 40 House seats and GAINED 2 Senate seats. I don't think the mid-term elections paint the picture you think it does.There were millions more votes cast for the Democratic Party than the Republican Party in 2018.
Actually, that's not correct Jack. From CNN (first link I found):That last part is overruling the Wisconsin Supreme Court I believe. This means they are rejecting a bedrock concept that State Supreme courts have any roll in state elections. kind of a big deal. I think we could a likely will see some full tilt boogie radical decisions with this court. And that decision was without Barret even on the court.Well, there is already talk of having the Supreme Court revisit their decision from last week on allowing ballots received in PA after Election Day to count. LINK
Yesterday they ruled that only ballots received by Election Day would count in WI. Be prepared for the GOP to try to get a preemptive ruing that only ballots processed and counted on Election Day should count.
Unlike the Pennsylvania order last week, the Wisconsin order Monday concerned a ruling from a lower federal court, not a state court, and Chief Justice John Roberts said that made a difference.
A federal district court in Wisconsin had sided with the Democrats to allow mail-in ballots to be received up to six days after Election Day, but an appeals court blocked that order and the Supreme Court upheld the block.
The federal district court, Roberts wrote in a concurring opinion, "intervened in the thick of election season" to block a state law. He said the case represented "federal intrusion on state lawmaking processes."
The Pennsylvania case, on the other hand, concerned a decision by the state's highest court. Roberts said that decision "implicated the authority of state courts to apply their own constitutions to election regulations."
"Different bodies of law and different precedents govern these two situations and require, in these particular circumstances, that we allow the modification of election rules in Pennsylvania but not Wisconsin," Roberts wrote.
This is a lot more boring that worrying about a coup, but it's worth noting that the court isn't really deciding which ballots count and which ones don't. It's deciding whether to follow election rules as written or whether (and to what degree) courts can amend the rules as they deem appropriate. There are good, reasonable arguments on both ends of that spectrum.Well, there is already talk of having the Supreme Court revisit their decision from last week on allowing ballots received in PA after Election Day to count. LINK
Yesterday they ruled that only ballots received by Election Day would count in WI. Be prepared for the GOP to try to get a preemptive ruing that only ballots processed and counted on Election Day should count.
You've posted in favor of court packing.Willfully savaging political institutions to get your way is corrupt all day long in my book.
Regarding the bolded, obviously the Senate elections are a little different in that only 1/3 of the Senate is elected at a time, whereas the entire House is up for election every time. So, depending on which states have open Senate seats, it's entirely possible for one party to pick up seats in the Senate while the other party picks up seats in the House. I think it's more accurate to say that the House is a better indicator for how the country feels about a given political party given that the entire House gets voted on each election.Yes, and? House races are more localized so it doesn't paint a statewide picture. The Senate races show what a state is thinking because they encompass the whole state and not just districts. Also, in mid-term elections the party that loses the general usually does well because there isn't the same motivation by the winning party. Example in 2010 the Democrats lost 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats. Then in the next mid-term in 2014 they lost 13 House seats and 9 Senate seats. In Trumps first mid-term they lost 40 House seats and GAINED 2 Senate seats. I don't think the mid-term elections paint the picture you think it does.
I absolutely disagree. If the court effectively decides the election the conservative justices will side with Trump and the liberal justices will side with Biden. Same when it comes to overturning Roe v Wade.The Supreme Court isn't corrupt. The confirmation process has just become contentious political theatre. Instead of deciding on the worthiness and capability of the nominee to interpret the Constitution, it's become this insane partisan battle for a Justice to decide cases based on that party's political platform ideology. Amy Coney Barrett should have gotten 90+ confirmation votes. She is highly capable and worthy of being a SC Justice.
I am fine with this happening before the election. My concern is what is likely to happen after the votes are counted and one side is attempting to invalidate them.This is a lot less boring that worrying about a coup, but it's worth noting that the court isn't really deciding which ballots count and which ones don't. It's deciding whether to follow election rules as written or whether (and to what degree) courts can amend the rules as they deem appropriate. There are good, reasonable arguments on both ends of that spectrum.
"When someone shows you who they are - believe them.""The only way I can lose is by a rigged election!!"
When the leader is saying stuff like that you should maybe take him serious.
Court unpacking. But yes.You've posted in favor of court packing.
Court unpacking. But yes.
It's legal so its perfectly legit right?
The rules seem to be if we can do it we will do it. Right?
Or do we have a separate set of rules?
Willfully savaging political institutions to get your way is corrupt all day long in my book.
The Court wrongly decided Roe. They legislated in that case. Overturning Roe would allow States to legislate abortion how they see fit.I absolutely disagree. If the court effectively decides the election the conservative justices will side with Trump and the liberal justices will side with Biden. Same when it comes to overturning Roe v Wade.
edit - It's already happening with the mail-in ballot decision.
Please be clear. Do you think the Supreme Court is corrupted?After watching the last 2 confirmation hearings I think that's pretty clear.
I believe the Supreme Court is ideologically corrupt.Please be clear. Do you think the Supreme Court is corrupted?
Do you? If not are you completely comfortable with the way things lie right now with the Supreme Court?Please be clear. Do you think the Supreme Court is corrupted?
I would not see corrupted, but extremely polarized. Given that campaign rallies are regularly being held at the White House, she should have been sworn in somewhere else.Please be clear. Do you think the Supreme Court is corrupted?
https://www.politico.com/video/2020/09/18/the-swearing-in-ceremony-for-judge-ruth-bader-ginsburg-091001I would not see corrupted, but extremely polarized. Given that campaign rallies are regularly being held at the White House (illegal), she should have been sworn in somewhere else.
No, I absolutely do not think the Supreme Court is corrupted.Do you? If not are you completely comfortable with the way things lie right now with the Supreme Court?
Who's to say he didn't win it if the President insists it is so? Who has stood up against him in the past? Who has the power?We'll just disagree then. I think someone taking the office of an election they didn't win is the definition of a coup.
That's radically different from a contested election that is decided exactly as the law outlines.
Are you saying the Supreme Court is corrupted?
You're not serious are you?Who's to say he didn't win it if the President insists it is so? Who has stood up against him in the past? Who has the power?
was there a campaign rally right after?
You have alot more faith in republicans doing the right thing than I do. Not sure why you think that way when all they've done is protect the way their minority can hold power. You don't think they're capable of election shenanigans? His entire life Trump sues if he doesn't get his way. His staff has already been filing lawsuits across the country suppressing voter turnout in unfavorable areas. Hell, he's got White House council defending him in a rape case.You're not serious are you?
Thanks. I do have more faith in the other Republicans. And of course there are a ton, likely a majority of Democrats in the House and Senate. Plus the people.You have alot more faith in republicans doing the right thing than I do. Not sure why you think that way when all they've done is protect the way their minority can hold power. You don't think they're capable of election shenanigans? His entire life Trump sues if he doesn't get his way. His staff has already been filing lawsuits across the country suppressing voter turnout in unfavorable areas. Hell, he's got White House council defending him in a rape case.
And who has stood up against him? Democrats can try but what does it matter if they don't hold a majority to oppose, Trump just accuses them of meddling to justify his means. Republicans stay quiet and let him do it so they can try and hold onto power. I think you're looking at something similar to 2000 but on a larger scale where Trump sues over results in several locations until he gets his way or appeals all the way up to his Supreme Court.
Why? What have they done in the last 4 years to deserve it? (I'm specifically speaking of the senate and congress)Thanks. I do have more faith in the other Republicans.
It's a different game for them if Trump loses. They, like anyone, are concerned first with their own job. Supporting a president everyone on both sides agrees is fairly elected is a lot different than joining a coup.Why? What have they done in the last 4 years to deserve it?
It's not a coup to their constituents if Trump says it isn't. The people that voted for them in the past could as easily pull their support because they didn't support the president as he fought against a corrupt election.It's a different game for them if Trump loses. They, like anyone, are concerned first with their own job. Supporting a president everyone on both sides agrees is fairly elected is a lot different than joining a coup.
I don't think there's much chance of this happening.everyone on both sides agrees is fairly elected
It's the ultimate power play move for him. He steps asidef for, in his words, the good of the country....yet he'll still be there watching Joe; making sure he isn't screwing up....and if he has to...he'll come back in 2024.You have alot more faith in republicans doing the right thing than I do. Not sure why you think that way when all they've done is protect the way their minority can hold power. You don't think they're capable of election shenanigans? His entire life Trump sues if he doesn't get his way. His staff has already been filing lawsuits across the country suppressing voter turnout in unfavorable areas. Hell, he's got White House council defending him in a rape case.
And who has stood up against him? Democrats can try but what does it matter if they don't hold a majority to oppose, Trump just accuses them of meddling to justify his means. Republicans stay quiet and let him do it so they can try and hold onto power. I think you're looking at something similar to 2000 but on a larger scale where Trump sues over results in several locations until he gets his way or appeals all the way up to his Supreme Court.
I think the only way Trump gets knocked out of office is a huge margin of victory for Biden or if this strategy to bring into question the election results is more for him to save face in a loss he actually (consciously/subconsciously) desires so he doesn't have to do the job for another four years.
I stepped up to 95-100%. Biden hasn't been losing ground in the polls, while Trump continues to shoot himself in the foot with his Covid denials, his staff publicly saying they can't control the virus at all, the 60 Minutes walkout, etc. The early, heavy voting shows the passion people have, I believe, to fire Trump.Sticking with Biden winning around 90% of the time. I don't think this election is going to be remotely close.
Is there a laughing / crying emoji?I'm a Falcons fan and voted for Biden.
He has a 0% chance of winning.
He will have a big early lead and then lose California.I'm a Falcons fan and voted for Biden.
He has a 0% chance of winning.
One can hope it plays out this way if it comes to pass. As my wife reminds me, lots of other countries' judiciaries have failed when pressed by autocrats preserving their power. Look to the rest of the world for how elections can fail.Another brilliant thing about the way this country was established, the States run the elections. There is no federal oversight really over vote-counting, there may be some lawsuits filed and that kind of thing that may delay the results, but the Supreme Court's going to rule on the rule of law they are still lawyers and judges first, and even if things get crazy for a little bit there is going to be a clear-cut winner that will be declared and Trump or Biden can do nothing about it.
Why is Trump winning FL and PA game over? Biden still has a very plausible path to victory even without those two - and one that right now based on polling is predicted to happen.Prior to the last debate I thought it was 50/50 on who would win. After Biden made his stupid oil comments, IMO he lost Pennsylvania which is one of the most important States in this election. Any chance Biden had in Texas are gone. He may have put Michigan in jeopardy as well. I always thought Trump was going to win Florida, and I still do. If Trump gets FL and PA it's game over, IMO. I put it 60/40 Trump now.
He doesn't even need NC - just Arizona plus WI, MN and MI will do it. I think that is why I have Biden so high in my poll vote - his multiple paths to victory right now all look like possibilities. Trump pulling an inside straight again seems unlikely to me.I stepped up to 95-100%. Biden hasn't been losing ground in the polls, while Trump continues to shoot himself in the foot with his Covid denials, his staff publicly saying they can't control the virus at all, the 60 Minutes walkout, etc. The early, heavy voting shows the passion people have, I believe, to fire Trump.
I expect Biden will take Penn and/or Florida. Even without them, he could take NC and Arizona and still win. But I expect a big win for Biden.
If Trump gets FL, then it's a sign that he's probably also getting GA and maybe even NC -- which closes one of Biden's paths.Why is Trump winning FL and PA game over? Biden still has a very plausible path to victory even without those two - and one that right now based on polling is predicted to happen.Prior to the last debate I thought it was 50/50 on who would win. After Biden made his stupid oil comments, IMO he lost Pennsylvania which is one of the most important States in this election. Any chance Biden had in Texas are gone. He may have put Michigan in jeopardy as well. I always thought Trump was going to win Florida, and I still do. If Trump gets FL and PA it's game over, IMO. I put it 60/40 Trump now.