US Politics XXV: At Least We're Not Australia

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
So according to https://www.ncsl.org/research/elect...ballot-processing-and-counting-can-begin.aspx, early / absentee vote counting starts no later than close of polls and sometimes as early as 2 weeks prior to Election Day. Unless I’m missing something, voting in person ASAP should be the goal. I don’t doubt for a second that Trump will claim victory first and do what he can in the courts, but if there are enough votes for Biden counted on the day to provide a decisive victory then surely he’ll be forced to start packing his bags.

I would have said that another impeachment would cost the Dems votes a few months ago, but not now. Time for them to fight dirty, sucker punching and nut slapping for as long as it takes.
 

Eh. I think this has been a little hyperbolized on twitter and some media. You can’t just declare yourself the winner. If Biden doesn’t concede then the count keeps going. States are in charge of their elections, every swing state is going to have thousands of lawyers already on the ground from both sides.

Every state begins verifying mail in votes as they receive them. So they know how many non-rejected absentees they have. On election night, if half of the ballots are cast on Election Day and half are absentees, they aren’t gonna be like - well we have 1.3 million absentee ballots to go, but we’re tired of counting soooo...
And remember, Some states count mail ins first (like FL). So that’s important. Biden could be up HUGE in FL at like 9pm Eastern time. But we will have to sit and watch it get smaller and smaller just hoping it will hold.

There isn’t enough alcohol for that night.

My hope is that Biden puts the work and money into FL these next 6 weeks, so we can just have an answer on election night.
Another thought is if NC goes to Biden by over 2 points, then we can probably be sure he’s got all he needs.
Or something crazy like Biden wins OH on election night. Then the only question would be, how big is the landslide??
 
Last edited:
Hold on. You're going to be SHOCKED! Susan Collins clarifies her initial statement, that a new justice should be chosen by the winner of the election. Now she's using the meaningless - There shouldn't be a new appointment before the election.

profiles in courage! :|
 
Internet talk but i read on another platform that models at this current moment have Biden with a 10 million popular vote advantage

And he can still lose
 
Hold on. You're going to be SHOCKED! Susan Collins clarifies her initial statement, that a new justice should be chosen by the winner of the election. Now she's using the meaningless - There shouldn't be a new appointment before the election.

profiles in courage! :|

Very few will be as deserving of getting the boot as her.

While it's obvious that McConnell is far more evil and has caused far more damage, at least he doesn't talk out of both sides of his mouth like she does.
 
Internet talk but i read on another platform that models at this current moment have Biden with a 10 million popular vote advantage

And he can still lose

Not sure on that one. I would say most expert pollsters like Nate Cohen, Nate Silver, Harry Enten, etc... would probably skew more towards the 5 to 6 million as the most Biden could win by and still lose.
Remember, Clinton got 3 million more and only lost by 74,000 votes across 3 different states. This time the decision will be even more on the state level. And because Biden is actually heavily targeting those particular states, I just don't see this as a real concern.

My best estimate is that Biden will actually get around 6 million more votes than Trump this time around, and that's being a bit conservative.

At this point, I think we can say that MN, MI, and WI are safe. PA I believe we can also call safe, but just not as much of a sure thing, not a lot of polling there in the last couple weeks.

That would be a Biden win, if he didn't win any other states that Clinton lost last time.
So after that, it's gravy. But there's a lot of gravy. AZ is looking strong, as strong or a little stronger than PA. NC is leaning Biden, He's still up by 2ish points in FL, They are tied in TX and GA, within 1.5 points in OH and IA, And just as a safety net, Biden is leading in NE-2, which would give him the win if he lost PA and everything else Clinton lost.

I know Dems are worriers. I am one of them. But I think we may all be surprised come Nov. 3rd (or soon after)

I think that Biden will squeak out NC. And I think that GA is truly in play, and I will state here now that I think Biden will win it by just under 1%.

TX is very interesting. Trump up by about half a point. But i've heard some really inspiring stuff from people in TX that are versed in local/state races. And they are seeing some very surprising swings toward Dems in these small races. Places where Trump won by 9 to 12 are now within a point or two. I think Houston is going to be a darker shade of blue this time. I think Austin is going to be even more fired up in turnout. Dallas and Houston are having the same suburban shift we are seeing across the country, And the suburbs are enormous in those areas. It will be a nail biter here. I still think Trump may take it by about 1 or 2 points. But it is winnable.
 
Places like Texas and Georgia are traps designed to get the Democrats to spend money that should be better allocated elsewhere.

Don't fall into the trap.

Splurge when you have more of a sure thing and when the future of the republic isn't at stake.

The other thing is that the Senate races in both those states look like they will go to the Republicans. So there is less of a chance that you get Biden lifted up by essentially hitching his star to an A+ Senatorial candidate (see: Mark Kelly in Arizona, for example).

The GA and TX Democratic candidates aren't bad, it's just that they're not strong enough to bring the state over the line.
 
Places like Texas and Georgia are traps designed to get the Democrats to spend money that should be better allocated elsewhere.

Don't fall into the trap.

Splurge when you have more of a sure thing and when the future of the republic isn't at stake.

I think money should be spent in GA. Clinton lost by 5 points. The average shift we are seeing across states right now is about 7 points. That's why TX, that was lost by 9, is probably not a great bet. But I think GA is a possibility.

And the shift looks to be even greater in the south. For example. LA, Trump won by 20 points in 2016, he's now polling at about +9. In MS, he won by 18, now +10, In my state of TN, Trump won by 26 points. Now he's +12. South Carolina Trump won by 16. Now Trump +7.

I think with the amount of money they have, they can stick with ad buys in MI, WI, PA, AZ, FL, NC, (possibly NV, OH, IA) and tack on GA. I know they have some small buys in TX, but not that much.

Also important is that Trump is having to spend money in these states playing defense. As he goes dark in places like OH, AZ and MI.

And also, more specifically, the Hegar Cornyn race in TX should have money dumped into it by the DNC. Hegar is within 3-4 points of Cornyn, and Hegar has received about 1/8th the money that McGrath has gotten in KY, where she is down by about 10.
 

Not that it's some sort of authoritative book of facts, but Woodward's new book left me with a lower overall opinion of Rosenstein and Mueller.

On the other hand, Rex Tillerson comes across extremely well - the CEO of Exxon worth millions would be a natural villain, but he's actually very intelligent, principled to the extreme and really well versed as to geopolitics from more than just a business angle. I mean he did call Trump a "fucking moron" so I'm sure Trumpsters just write him off as another crazy member of Antifa and the left writes him off as another amoral corporate overlord. But really neither is true.
 
New York, Portland and Seattle have been declared anarchist cities by DOJ.

This is where we are as a country.

The trumpet mushrooms I had while dining outdoors in Brooklyn last night were a tad over salted, but I wouldn't call my experience anarchic.

In other news, this is excellent.

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/09/abraham-lincoln-supreme-court-slavery

Lincoln's power play against the pro-slavery Supreme Court:

Across the late 1850s, Lincoln argued that “the American people,” not the Supreme Court, were the true arbiters of the Constitution, and that the only way to defeat the proslavery judiciary was through mass political struggle. And after Lincoln and Hamlin were elected in 1860, the new president’s inaugural address articulated this view in perhaps the strongest language he ever used:

"f the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made . . . the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

Once in power, Lincoln and congressional Republicans “reorganized” the federal judiciary and “packed” the court, adding an additional justice in 1863. More fundamentally, though, they simply ignored the proslavery precedents established in the 1850s. In June 1862, for instance, Congress passed and Lincoln signed a bill banning slavery from the federal territories — a direct violation of the majority ruling in Dred Scott. The court meekly acquiesced, recognizing that its political power was long since broken.


Warren’s point, in other words, is that the greatest democratic expansion in US political history — the era of emancipation and Reconstruction — demanded a direct political attack on the power of the Supreme Court. Nor is it a coincidence that the court, as it began to recover its strength in the 1870s, led the reactionary attack on this democratic project.
 
Last edited:
If Trump wins, and we move further into punitive minortiy rule, they will come for me.

I might. It be first in line, and they may not succeed. Political unpopularity does t matter when the system is rigged to reward rural voters.

I will be in their crosshairs.
 
We've already had a recent election sorted out by the courts (2000) which probably put us on this path of destruction.

Mitch is perfectly fine giving up the Senate and the White House to have a 6-3 Supreme Court.

I think that's a bit of a bluff. I think Mitch knows that having a 6-3 court going into the election pretty much guarantees the GOP and Trump stay in power.

Trump is going to steal this election, and now he has the ENTIRE Federal Government to help him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom