US Presidential Election 2020

eire4 · 26-10-2020 11:09PM

droidus wrote: »

Let's not kid ourselves - this description also fits the Democrats, at least partially.

Wish I could disagree but I cannot. I think economically the corporate Democrats take care of the say top 20% richest Americans while the Republicans look after the greed of the top 1% richest. But no question both parties very much do not care for the best economic interests of the vast majority of Americans which is how income inequality, poverty and lack of socio-economic mobility have become so bad in the US since Reagan.

Rjd2 · 26-10-2020 11:10PM

droidus wrote: »

Id say that it's also due to concern about the medium-long term damage that Trump has done to the GOP and the conservative movement. If they get rid of him now, there's at least a chance of recovery.

Yeah.

Trump accidentally shined a light on a lot of the bull**** they have been getting away with for decades.

The most recent obvious example would be voter fraud.

I won't give Trump a pass here, but anyone who thinks Romney, Cruz, Rubio etc would have pushed back against that....:P

Water John · 26-10-2020 11:11PM

Biden is holding two events in Georgia tomorrow. The Dems see the state as in their reach.

Itssoeasy · 26-10-2020 11:32PM

Water John wrote: »

Biden is holding two events in Georgia tomorrow. The Dems see the state as in their reach.

There was talk of Kamala Harris going to Texas this week also. That poll from Dallas yesterday was positive. I mean democratic candidates going to Georgia and Texas a week out from the election is something you don’t see often. Trump is playing defence in places he shouldn’t have to as a republican as there is down ballot republicans who must be losing sleep over the down draft of ****e caused by trump that will impact them.

Water John · 26-10-2020 11:50PM

Trump was banking on focusing on florida and winning it one way or the other but he's had to turn most of his attention on Pennsylvania. The only one of the Rust Belt states he has any chance of.

Overheal · 27-10-2020 12:21AM

Pence is being dispensed to South Carolina to shore up Lindsey Graham's hemorrhaging senate race.

Overheal · 27-10-2020 12:23AM

Water John wrote: »

Biden is holding two events in Georgia tomorrow. The Dems see the state as in their reach.

Not surprising given what happened with the voter supression and narrow loss to the Republicans in the 2018 Gubernatorial race.

Brian Kemp won with 50.2% of the vote. Districts that Stacey Abrams needed to win were given voting machines without power cords.

Turning Georgia blue now would only begin to repair the damage of their abuse of power.

letowski · 27-10-2020 12:41AM

Water John wrote: »

Biden is holding two events in Georgia tomorrow. The Dems see the state as in their reach.

Im not sure do I agree with this, Harris is going to Texas also while Biden will then continue on to Iowa too. Already 40% of people have voted in these states, there is slim pickings left. They still lean red or toss up .

Maybe it’s a diversionary tactics to pull Trump away from the rust belt. Ultimately Biden’s best path is through building the mid west blue wall and I think he’d be better spent fortifying it.

Nonetheless the number of undecideds are minimal enough so it probably doesn’t matter much at this stage.

MJohnston · 27-10-2020 12:49AM

letowski wrote: »

Im not sure do I agree with this, Harris is going to Texas also while Biden will then continue on to Iowa too. Already 40% of people have voted in these states, there is slim pickings left. They still lean red or toss up .

Maybe it’s a diversionary tactics to pull Trump away from the rust belt. Ultimately Biden’s best path is through building the mid west blue wall and I think he’d be better spent fortifying it.

Nonetheless the number of undecideds are minimal enough so it probably doesn’t matter much at this stage.

The Senate is what matters in GA and is a good enough reason for Biden to GOTV there.

marno21 · 27-10-2020 12:52AM

letowski wrote: »

Im not sure do I agree with this, Harris is going to Texas also while Biden will then continue on to Iowa too. Already 40% of people have voted in these states, there is slim pickings left. They still lean red or toss up .

Maybe it’s a diversionary tactics to pull Trump away from the rust belt. Ultimately Biden’s best path is through building the mid west blue wall and I think he’d be better spent fortifying it.

Nonetheless the number of undecideds are minimal enough so it probably doesn’t matter much at this stage.

Most voting to date has been for Biden/Dem congressional candidates. It seems as though election day voting will primarily by Republican voters.

Tell me how · 27-10-2020 12:59AM

marno21 wrote: »

Most voting to date has been for Biden/Dem congressional candidates. It seems as though election day voting will primarily by Republican voters.

Or.................

Mal-Adjusted · 27-10-2020 03:27AM

Maybe this is a silly question and maybe it's been asked before but i'm not trawling through eight thousane posts...

How will exit poling be carried out? Because if we take it that mail in and early voting will lean heavily Democrat, then it's natural to assume exit polls on the night will lean heavily Republican. I'm just wondering if this will be figured into the exit polls. Are early/mail in voting counted already or do they wait until election night to open the envelopes? The last thing anyone needs is the news media calling it hugely for Trump and a few days later Biden wins. The MAGA crowd would go balistic.

Tell me how · 27-10-2020 04:02AM

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

Maybe this is a silly question and maybe it's been asked before but i'm not trawling through eight thousane posts...

How will exit poling be carried out? Because if we take it that mail in and early voting will lean heavily Democrat, then it's natural to assume exit polls on the night will lean heavily Republican. I'm just wondering if this will be figured into the exit polls. Are early/mail in voting counted already or do they wait until election night to open the envelopes? The last thing anyone needs is the news media calling it hugely for Trump and a few days later Biden wins. The MAGA crowd would go balistic.

Article here

Processing absentee ballots generally includes steps short of tabulating them -- such as removing them from the envelope, confirming voter eligibility, matching signatures to what's on record and scanning them.

Some states have changed their processing rules due to the pandemic, allowing for earlier processing starts to accommodate the increased volume of absentee ballots. For instance, the battleground state of Michigan can begin processing the day before Election Day in cities with a population over 25,000 this year, instead of the day of.

A majority of states won't start actually counting ballots until the morning of Election Day or after polls close. Most counting rules have remained unchanged this year, though some states have adjusted their timelines due to the pandemic to ease the burden of increased absentee ballots. For instance, the battleground state of Pennsylvania passed a law this past spring allowing clerks to start counting ballots at 7 a.m. on Election Day, rather than waiting until after the polls close.

What you said could indeed be a problem and Trump is trying to demand a result on 3rd November which would heavily lean towards in person voting tallies.
Let's hope he get's his result (effectively) but that it is a defeat for him with the only thing to be confirmed as postal votes are counted is the margin.

everlast75 · 27-10-2020 08:42AM

I wonder on the effect of the latest SCOTUS confirmation.

From the left's perspective, I see it as a major motivator for turnout. Obama chose Garland as he was palatable to the right and look how he was rewarded. Dems are baying for blood, which can't be good for Reps when it comes to turnout. Despite that, this was tweeted by a GOP account, which can only motivate folks more

https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1320878683423428609?s=19

(That's all fine, owning the libs eh? but don't come crying when you perceive a lack of civility from them)

From the Reps perspective, they already have their 3 SCOTUS judges, a rake of Circuit Court nominations - no real motivation to vote. If they had of held off on ACB's nomination, that might have driven a few more out to vote IMHO

Itssoeasy · 27-10-2020 10:05AM

Well I don’t feel much sympathy for some parts of the democratic voter base. They now know for certain and there can be no doubt that elections have long lasting consequences in the United States so they need to take some blame. The phrase “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” should be tattooed somewhere for them to all see. Stop with the purity test and wanting every candidate to be pure or else you won’t vote for them. These are political elections not NASA launches.

Water John · 27-10-2020 10:25AM

I would expect Biden to go to 11 judges. That would largely balance it, considering he said it was skewed. Whilst it would lean slightly con, Roberts would be the casting vote. That's reasonable as a Supreme Court should be hesitant to change a rule, same as populations are usually slow to alter a Constitution.

Zubeneschamali · 27-10-2020 11:06AM

Tell me how wrote: »

What you said could indeed be a problem and Trump is trying to demand a result on 3rd November which would heavily lean towards in person voting tallies.

The whole rigmarole of news stations and pundits calling the election on the night, and candidates declaring victory or conceding defeat, has no legal effect whatever.

The states will count votes and then certify results, there is and never has been a legal result on election night.

seamus · 27-10-2020 11:31AM

Water John wrote: »

I would expect Biden to go to 11 judges. That would largely balance it, considering he said it was skewed. Whilst it would lean slightly con, Roberts would be the casting vote. That's reasonable as a Supreme Court should be hesitant to change a rule, same as populations are usually slow to alter a Constitution.

I wouldn't trust the democrats to do this properly.

They'd put through the bill to add new SCOTUSes, but in the interests of "unity" they'd accept some Republican amendment that imposed term limits on new appointees.

Then when the Reps take control again, the Democratic judges will step down as their terms expire and they Reps will abolish term limits and throw two more Republican nominees in.

This game has been going on for decades and it's why a minority party has managed to wield undue power and hoard power away from influence of democracy.

Every olive branch the Democrats hold out for the Republicans, is gladly taken and used as a stick to beat them later on.

ELM327 · 27-10-2020 11:39AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The whole rigmarole of news stations and pundits calling the election on the night, and candidates declaring victory or conceding defeat, has no legal effect whatever.

The states will count votes and then certify results, there is and never has been a legal result on election night.

+1

The "result" of the election is actually not confirmed until some time after, when the electors cast their votes in the electoral college. These are the only votes that actually matter in strict terms.

Water John · 27-10-2020 12:09PM

seamus wrote: »

I wouldn't trust the democrats to do this properly.

They'd put through the bill to add new SCOTUSes, but in the interests of "unity" they'd accept some Republican amendment that imposed term limits on new appointees.

Then when the Reps take control again, the Democratic judges will step down as their terms expire and they Reps will abolish term limits and throw two more Republican nominees in.

This game has been going on for decades and it's why a minority party has managed to wield undue power and hoard power away from influence of democracy.

Every olive branch the Democrats hold out for the Republicans, is gladly taken and used as a stick to beat them later on.

Biden has already said he won't go with limited terms in office. That he has rejected. He has put the option of increasing the number in the court out there and seemed to indicate it would be looked at, considering how the court operates in the next few months. If the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is struck down, I have no doubt the court will increase to 11.
If the Dems have control of the Senate then a new more comprehensive health bill would be pushed through.

everlast75 · 27-10-2020 12:44PM

Here is a story that speaks a lot of sense to me.

Should Biden win, and it is not a foregone conclusion, it's time to take the gloves off...

https://twitter.com/JoshuaMZeitz/status/1321047900198154241?s=19

droidus · 27-10-2020 12:59PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The whole rigmarole of news stations and pundits calling the election on the night, and candidates declaring victory or conceding defeat, has no legal effect whatever.

The states will count votes and then certify results, there is and never has been a legal result on election night.

Kavanaugh's opinion on the Wisconsin mail in case confirms what we already knew was going to happen, they're going to try and stop the count early and steal the election.

“Late-arriving ballots open up one of the greatest risks of what might, in our era of hyperpolarized political parties and existential politics, destabilize the election result,” New York University Professor Richard Pildes wrote in a June law review article about the challenges posed by this year’s election. “If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode. The longer after Election Day any significant changes in vote totals take place, the greater the risk that the losing side will cry that the election has been stolen.”

TomOnBoard · 27-10-2020 01:09PM

everlast75 wrote: »

Here is a story that speaks a lot of sense to me.

Should Biden win, and it is not a foregone conclusion, it's time to take the gloves off...

https://twitter.com/JoshuaMZeitz/status/1321047900198154241?s=19

That's a very informative article, which makes a lot of sense to me.

Itssoeasy · 27-10-2020 01:12PM

Water John wrote: »

I would expect Biden to go to 11 judges. That would largely balance it, considering he said it was skewed. Whilst it would lean slightly con, Roberts would be the casting vote. That's reasonable as a Supreme Court should be hesitant to change a rule, same as populations are usually slow to alter a Constitution.

And then the GOP will go to 13 and then they’ll have to build on a new wing(obviously building a new wing is a joke).

The nine justices have been that number for nearly all of the history of the Supreme Court and I don’t think they should change it. It’s a Supreme Court not adding the three point line to a basketball court. The democrats need to just toughen up and not playing so bloody nice and also stop assuming that their policies will just magically be accepted. And I would agree with many of the over arching policies of the democrats but I think how they go about them and at times arrogance(might be too harsh a word) fails badly and as I said believing it will just magically happen clearly doesn’t work.

droidus · 27-10-2020 01:21PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

And then the GOP will go to 13 and then they’ll have to build on a new wing(obviously building a new wing is a joke).

The nine justices have been that number for nearly all of the history of the Supreme Court and I don’t think they should change it. It’s a Supreme Court not adding the three point line to a basketball court. The democrats need to just toughen up and not playing so bloody nice and also stop assuming that their policies will just magically be accepted. And I would agree with many of the over arching policies of the democrats but I think how they go about them and at times arrogance(might be too harsh a word) fails badly and as I said believing it will just magically happen clearly doesn’t work.

Nope.

The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since.

5 members of the court have been appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. The GOP prevented the appointment of another Dem nominated judge.

It's time that the democrats get real before minority rule by right wing extremists becomes completely enshrined in law.

BonnieSituation · 27-10-2020 01:23PM

seamus wrote: »

I wouldn't trust the democrats to do this properly.

They'd put through the bill to add new SCOTUSes, but in the interests of "unity" they'd accept some Republican amendment that imposed term limits on new appointees.

Then when the Reps take control again, the Democratic judges will step down as their terms expire and they Reps will abolish term limits and throw two more Republican nominees in.

This game has been going on for decades and it's why a minority party has managed to wield undue power and hoard power away from influence of democracy.

Every olive branch the Democrats hold out for the Republicans, is gladly taken and used as a stick to beat them later on.

This is what is really getting to me reading about olive branches and bipartisanship. Those days are over. The main task for the Dems now is to ensure the majority actually get to rule.

If you want the GOP to play nice, then they need to be humbled and to come back to you begging to be let back in to play.

We have seen only to readily what happens when you allow the fringes to have some oxygen.

It's time for the libs to own the racists.

Overheal · 27-10-2020 02:41PM

everlast75 wrote: »

I wonder on the effect of the latest SCOTUS confirmation.

From the left's perspective, I see it as a major motivator for turnout. Obama chose Garland as he was palatable to the right and look how he was rewarded. Dems are baying for blood, which can't be good for Reps when it comes to turnout. Despite that, this was tweeted by a GOP account, which can only motivate folks more

https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1320878683423428609?s=19

(That's all fine, owning the libs eh? but don't come crying when you perceive a lack of civility from them)

From the Reps perspective, they already have their 3 SCOTUS judges, a rake of Circuit Court nominations - no real motivation to vote. If they had of held off on ACB's nomination, that might have driven a few more out to vote IMHO

There’s also the Wisconsin primary ruling. Brett Kavanaugh, who once argued as a lawyer for successfully having votes tallied for Bush in 2000 as late as Thanksgiving, led the majority’s opinion that it was just too confusing to voters to count mail in ballots that are post marked BEFORE the election that are received after the polls close.

The pretenses are all dropping. They own the court. They own the courts. They don’t need to play by any rules now, watch how much voter suppression we see in the next few days.

VinLieger · 27-10-2020 03:21PM

Overheal wrote: »

There’s also the Wisconsin primary ruling. Brett Kavanaugh, who once argued as a lawyer for successfully having votes tallied for Bush in 2000 as late as Thanksgiving, led the majority’s opinion that it was just too confusing to voters to count mail in ballots that are post marked BEFORE the election that are received after the polls close.

The pretenses are all dropping. They own the court. They own the courts. They don’t need to play by any rules now, watch how much voter suppression we see in the next few days.

Whats going to be very interesting is they are about to lose control of a ton of state legislatures in a census year so with redistricting being decided next year, will we see the republicans take gerrymander cases to the supreme court since they have control and might hope for a favorable verdict?

Overheal · 27-10-2020 03:31PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Whats going to be very interesting is they are about to lose control of a ton of state legislatures in a census year so with redistricting being decided next year, will we see the republicans take gerrymander cases to the supreme court since they have control and might hope for a favorable verdict?

The census is of course yet another thing Republicans effectively control now with supremacy on the court.

They can do no wrong now. Kavanaugh’s ruling on the Wisconsin ballots signaled they look like they see themselves as political rulers now. The peasants can’t have our votes counted because it might be too upsetting to our fragile minds if we don’t accept the CNN/FOX *projection* of who the next president is when the polls close Nov 3.

droidus · 27-10-2020 03:32PM

66 million votes now. 80% in Texas, which is expecting maybe 12-13 mil total, compared to 8 mil in 2018.

If SCOTUS attempts to stop counting when Biden is leading by millions in the popular vote there'll be riots.

US Presidential Election 2020

Comments