2020 Presidential Election: let the jockeying commence

Duck Dodgers said:
Trump wins Florida without much difficulty I'd say. Apparently he's doing very well with Hispanics there. I think the whole Burn Loot Movement isn't playing well in that group - Hispanics are few and far between in any march for that foolishness.

NV is a interesting case. Was a reliable R vote for many years, then as the West trended leftist, it has as well, with lots of Hispanic's brought in to work in Las Vegas, and all the old Boss Tweed style political machine to get them to the polls and vote the correct way, once, maybe twice!

The R party there took a beating in 18, including the loss of the Senator seat (which is why the +4 R Senator victories in ND, MO, IN, and FLA can't just waved away regardless of what some think - a true national wave would have killed R's there too).

Will unemployment there, from the strict and stupid lock down by the D governor sour voters on Slow Joe? You'd hope so, but the media complex will just blame Trump for the fact that the governor "had, just had" to shut everything down, lest everyone die of something that kills about 0.01 percent of those under 70.

If NV was in the east, a Trump win here would show that it's game over (similar to a Trump win in NH would show). But the election may be over before NV gets to bat.
Click to expand...

Imo, trump loses NH easily. I'll agree, and assume FL goes to Trump.

I think this whole thing comes down to Pennsylvania. If Trump doesn't close the deal there, he's toast. Hopefully the RNC has a plan to keep PA from being stolen
A fair election is absolutely needed, regardless of outcome.
 
The PA Supreme Court is basically the ruler of the state - they write all the congressional districts, and make up election law as they see fit.

So far the Supreme Court hasn't stepped in, hopefully they will - they did strike down a ruling from a lower court that said that signatures for absentee ballots didn't need a witness in South Carolina, so that's a good sign they are keeping an eye on election laws, and will prevent judges from changing the law as they see fit.

Trump doesn't have to have PA, could win with MI, or WI and I think the Maine upstate district to get to 270.

NH is a good indicator. Trump doesn't have to win it - if it's close, then it's a good sign for him. Bush won it in 2000, close loss in 2004, close loss (probably from illegal same day college student votes as the race was within 1000 votes) by Trump in 2016. Bad losses by McShitStain, the absolute worst nominee the Republican party has put on the ballot since Hardin, probably worse, as Harding wasn't a vile, craven man, and the fraud and coward Romney in 2012, showed it was going to be a bad night.
 
Monahorns said:
Trump speaks clearly against Critical Race Theory too.

He at least tries to reduce/end wars.

He won't enact the Green New Deal, though I wish he was more pro-fossil fuels.

He won't enact a national mask mandate or lockdown.

To me, those 4 things are at least as important as not packing the court, as well.
Click to expand...

If court packing becomes ok, you don't have even a freeish country anymore. You'll get all that stuff (except maybe "the wars"), but it'll come through or as a result of federal court orders. They'll come up with a "constitutional" right to a clean environment, to employment, and to healthcare. There's your Green New Deal. There's your national mask mandate. The critical race theory crap will come through the bureaucracy. It won't need the courts, but it wouldn't be hard to come up with a rationale to force it through the courts if necessary. It's all about issue-framing and having a Court that's sympathetic to your cause.

If court packing actually occurs, secession needs to become a mainstream position again and needs to be on the table even if it means civil war again.
 
Horn2RunAgain said:
Imo, trump loses NH easily. I'll agree, and assume FL goes to Trump.

I think this whole thing comes down to Pennsylvania. If Trump doesn't close the deal there, he's toast. Hopefully the RNC has a plan to keep PA from being stolen
A fair election is absolutely needed, regardless of outcome.
Click to expand...
I think this is true and it scares me.
 
Duck Dodgers said:
Trump doesn't have to have PA, could win with MI, or WI and I think the Maine upstate district to get to 270.

.
Click to expand...

RealClearPolitics - 2020 Election Maps - 2020 Electoral College Map

If Biden takes WI, MI and PA, it's church. That will give him 272 EV,(accounting for the 1 renegade EV that both ME, NE offer, I keep reading has a big chance to go blue this cycle. )…. and that doesn't account for NV or AZ which are going to be very close unless Biden loses his mind on a debate stage.


Take away PA from dems, then all Trump needs is either AZ or NV. Not both. This assumes FL, NC, GA all go red

RCP has Biden at 226 EV right now. Being realistic, let's say MI and WI go blue. The 1 renegade EV that both ME, NE offer, I keep reading has a big chance to go blue. Biden takes the above, it gives him 254 EVs. If he caries PA (20ev), it's over.

The "Phoebe Cates has left the pool" moment would be if we could take MN, or WI. Either would be hard for Biden to overcome. If we took both it would negate PA altogether. I'm optimistic but the chance of defeat is very real
 
Last edited:
Horn6721 said:
I see Biden is trying to weasel of next debate saying if Trump has COVID there should be no debate.
Click to expand...

Biden has absolutely nothing to gain and a lot to lose by debating Trump again. He'd be crazy to debate him at this point.

The key debate will be between Pence and Harris, since she'll almost surely become President with a year or two if Biden wins. And he needs to do to her what he did to Tim Kaine.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="Mr. Deez, post: 1765223, member: 39847"If court packing actually occurs, secession needs to become a mainstream position again and needs to be on the table even if it means civil war again.[/QUOTE]

Packing the Supreme Court would be horribly, horribly wrong. But it takes on a somewhat different light if Barrett is confirmed when Garland was not — also horribly, horribly wrong. Refusing to confirm Garland was defensible. So is confirming Barrett. But both, just 4 years apart? Nope. How can Democrat’s be asked to accept that?

At some point, one side or the other needs to stop the escalation. But it’s hypocritical to expect the other side to do so if your side doesn’t.
 
Horn2RunAgain said:
The 1 renegade EV that both ME, NE offer, I keep reading has a big chance to go blue.
Click to expand...

Oops! Media lets out an honest poll.

12F0FB9C-9688-448E-B61C-4B83CF2172FD.jpeg
 
In PA, Emerson went from +9 Biden to +5, meaning their earlier poll in late August was BS. What are the odds the current poll is BS? 100%
 
NJ
Do you see any difference in the situation between Garland and Barrett?
Can you review history and see how the difference when it occurred played out?
 
NJlonghorn said:
Packing the Supreme Court would be horribly, horribly wrong. But it takes on a somewhat different light if Barrett is confirmed when Garland was not — also horribly, horribly wrong. Refusing to confirm Garland was defensible. So is confirming Barrett. But both, just 4 years apart? Nope. How can Democrat’s be asked to accept that?

At some point, one side or the other needs to stop the escalation. But it’s hypocritical to expect the other side to do so if your side doesn’t.
Click to expand...

Come on, man. Packing the Court isn't just wrong. It's destructive. It's returning a punch in the face with setting off a bomb in the building. And long term, it will hurt Democrats every bit as much as it hurts Republicans. They'll regret it much more than they regret dumping the judicial filibuster.

It's definitely not comparable to denying Garland. He had no right to be confirmed. That wasn't the source of the unfairness or the hypocrisy. The hypocrisy was denying him a hearing and a vote.

And no, I don't expect Democrats to "accept" anything. When they come to power, I expect them to be hypocritical as the GOP has been. They can force through nominations in election years and deny the same courtesy to Republican presidents. But no, they don't get to just ruin the federal court system in a temper tantrum, and if they do, they'll be in the wrong and wildly so.

FWIW, I don't think they'll actually do it. I think moderates in the Senate will stop it. However, it's too dangerous for a presidential candidate to even have it on the table. Trump won't do it. Biden might. For me, that was decisive - outweighs everything bad about Trump.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Come on, man. Packing the Court isn't just wrong. It's destructive. It's returning a punch in the face with setting off a bomb in the building. And long term, it will hurt Democrats every bit as much as it hurts Republicans. They'll regret it much more than they regret dumping the judicial filibuster.

It's definitely not comparable to denying Garland. He had no right to be confirmed. That wasn't the source of the unfairness or the hypocrisy. The hypocrisy was denying him a hearing and a vote.

And no, I don't expect Democrats to "accept" anything. When they come to power, I expect them to be hypocritical as the GOP has been. They can force through nominations in election years and deny the same courtesy to Republican presidents. But no, they don't get to just ruin the federal court system in a temper tantrum, and if they do, they'll be in the wrong and wildly so.

FWIW, I don't think they'll actually do it. I think moderates in the Senate will stop it. However, it's too dangerous for a presidential candidate to even have it on the table. Trump won't do it. Biden might. For me, that was decisive - outweighs everything bad about Trump.
Click to expand...
I am no lawyer but it seems to me that if the Dems pack the court then states like Texas would have moral leverage to ignore whatever decisions the SCOTUS made after the court packing. In a nutshell, that is secession.
 
Horn6721 said:
NJ
Do you see any difference in the situation between Garland and Barrett?
Can you review history and see how the difference when it occurred played out?
Click to expand...

The Democrats have a legitimate grievance here, but they (and NJ) grossly overstate it. Historically, the Senate has generally done what Cocaine Mitch is doing. They've confirmed their own party's election year nominees and rejected the opposing party's.

The problem is that McConnell didn't focus on the opposing party element in 2016. Maybe he technically mentioned it, but I don't recall that. He certainly didn't celebrate that point. Furthermore, several Republican senators whose votes are essential to confirm Barrett said they'd do the same thing with a Republican in the White House. Obviously those guys look like dishinest hacks now.

They also didn't just reject Garland. They denied him a hearing and did so when we were much further from the election than we are now. It's a bad look.

What they should have done is give Garland a hearing and then vote him down. And just be honest about. We didn't want him rejected because it was an election year or because of his party. We wanted him rejected, because he wouldn't have been willing to respect the written law on crucial issues that the public cares about.

And the freakout is phony. Does anyone think Democrats would have confirmed a Bush nominee in 2008? **** no.
 
mchammer said:
I am no lawyer but it seems to me that if the Dems pack the court then states like Texas would have moral leverage to ignore whatever decisions the SCOTUS made after the court packing. In a nutshell, that is secession.
Click to expand...

Leverage? I don't know about that. A moral obligation? Yes.
 
re Garland: the Republicans had a larger majority in the Senate at that time and if they had given him a hearing they could and would have rejected the appointment.

Lost in all this hubub is the fact that Obama was very lazy in appointing people to the inferior courts and Trump was not. For example, in my division there was a judge who announced she was taking senior status a couple of years before Obama left office. He never nominated anybody. The explanation I got from some people who are more in touch was that Cruz and Cornyn would not accept any Democrat Obama picked. The solution to that was to pick a Republican who was learned and not a Tea Party type. Or ask Cornyn for a consensus pick. Obama would not or did not do so. As it turned out that is what we got from Trump and the guy is excellent.

But there were lots of federal judges whom Obama could have put on the court but his slow office of counsel did not move with any speed. I guess they were certain THE THING would win. She didn't.

And of course RGB could have left during Obama's tenure and opened it up. She didn't and so we get a mini-Scalia. For which I am grateful. Thanks RGB!!!
 
WillUSAF said:
He would be crazy to debate him again. It would only hurt him in the long run. Smart move by Biden IMO.
Click to expand...

Is it smart if the undecideds determine Biden is chickening out? In the end he's going to be judged for his actions. In this case it just has the appearance of yet another inaction. Not the trait of a leader
 
Silver thinks Biden is going to win FL, NC, OH. I would bet him $1000. douche canoe.

914CED49-08DA-4E38-B999-ED48DFFA115E.png
 
New WI poll shows 46-41 Biden. This means Trump is winning. Biden may get 48% max. Trump got 70-90% of the undecided vote last time (shy voters).
 
Mr. Deez said:
What they should have done is give Garland a hearing and then vote him down. And just be honest about. We didn't want him rejected because it was an election year or because of his party. We wanted him rejected, because he wouldn't have been willing to respect the written law on crucial issues that the public cares about.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! Mitch made a mistake. Obama was the POTUS at the time, thus he had the Constitutional right (and duty) to nominate a candidate for SCOTUS. The Senate has the duty to evaluate the candidate and either confirm him or deny him. All Mitch had to do was schedule a hearing, drag it out for a long while, then call for a vote and vote Garland down, not leaving Obama any time for another candidate before Trump took office. That would have solved the problem.
 
Jane Fonda is still a vile POS
Watch: Biden Fundraiser Jane Fonda Says COVID-19 Is 'God's Gift to the Left'
"“I just think that COVID is God’s gift to the Left,” Jane Fonda said. “That’s a terrible thing to say. I think it was a very difficult thing to send down to us, but it has ripped the band-aid off who [Trump] is and what he stands for and what is being done to average people and working people in this country.”

WTF is wrong with these people? Can any Dem or Lib or here defend this?

Bubba? Can you defend any of the vile things so many Dems, both Pols and other high profile Dems are saying?
 
Horn2RunAgain said:
Is it smart if the undecideds determine Biden is chickening out? In the end he's going to be judged for his actions. In this case it just has the appearance of yet another inaction. Not the trait of a leader
Click to expand...

In any other election with any other opponent, I'd agree 100 percent. However, he's got two plausible arguments not to debate, and of course, the media will do everything they can to back them up. First, Trump has Covid and Biden is in a high-risk category. That's a pretty solid reason to stay away from him. Second, Trump made a total mockery of the first debate by not letting Biden speak and pissing off a Fox News moderator. No reason to let him do that again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top