American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Scary thing is, he could win. Not predicting anything, just noting that’s a possible outcome on Tuesday.

[puffnstuff]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

That's likely what the GOP is banking on. If they win I would bet a large amount of money that the 25th amendment gets invoked before Trump's term is up and couch ####er gets installed as president. Then the shift from United States into Gilead gets kicked into high gear

If he wins Vance isnt going to wait long, id bet on inside the first 100 days

Theres been a lot of rw noise complaining about women being able to vote. An example Ive seen; only one vote per household and the husband casts it.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

Theres been a lot of rw noise complaining about women being able to vote. An example Ive seen; only one vote per household and the husband casts it.

...and in 2024, it is absolutely bat#### insane that this kind of tripe is even being discussed.

[Dion]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1852903665259970955

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Listen to how many of his supporters laugh at his comments.

He’s just such a piece of human garbage.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1853119492320280838

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Scary thing is, he could win. Not predicting anything, just noting that’s a possible outcome on Tuesday.

I can't remember if it was the 2016 or 2020 election (thinking 2016), but I remember you were a wealth of knowledge for one of those elections, with really solid, in-depth and reasonable takes.

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

How many people are as equally uninformed and will vote for Trump thinking he will "fix" inflation with tariffs instead of doing the opposite? Millions? Tens of millions?

The Dems should have be hammering this point constantly. The most hardcore Trump cultists will assume it's a lie and believe him without question, but there has to be enough rational people among his voters to swing things enough to help Harris win. Or maybe not but they should be trying.

I think the Harris camp hasn't attacked this issue because they too will move towards a more protectionist stance too. It won't be as loud or extreme as the Trump side. But let's not kid ourselves. The U.S. with Energy and Food Security is going to be a lot more difficult to do business with for anyone not offering something they can't live without.

In the next 10 years it won't really matter who is in Power, the U.S. will make trade much harder on anyone wanting to do business with them.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

If he wins Vance isnt going to wait long, id bet on inside the first 100 days

I think there are some really wild ways that could go.

Suppose Vance does try to do that, and gets 50% of cabinet on-board; I think that will be pretty easy, although the sorts of people that Trump tends to hire will be the sort who are looking to move up in his inner circle and oust others from it. There will be some cabinet members who are mostly loyal to the christofascist movement like Vance. But there would be Trump loyalists too, though even they could likely be bought.

But he still needs to get 2/3 of both chambers, which means he needs votes from the Democrats. So suppose the Democrats decide that no, Trump is kept in check by his own incompetence, but Vance wouldn't be, and is by far the worse threat. Some could argue that whatever concerns there are of Trump's mental state, these conditions existed during the election, the American people voted for it, and so removing him in favor of Vance is overturning the will of the American people.

Further linking Vance and his cabinet team to Project 2025, and using Trump's own language of disavowing Project 2025 as amounting to a coup that goes against the will of Americans and against the president.

They could also go to Trump and tell him that they'll vote against removing him if he fires the disloyal members of his cabinet and replace them with a slate of Democrat-chosen cabinet members.

Vance also might not have the loyalty of the republican house representatives, as there are many who derive their political power from their loyalty to Trump, and would delight in the opportunity to prove themselves as 'true loyalists' over other Republicans like Vance. Suppose in exchange for protecting Trump, a deal between the MAGA Republicans and Democrats involved impeaching Vance and removing him from office and having a Democrat-approved replacement?

I know this is all more like the plot of 'House of Cards' than traditional politics, but we'd be in really unprecidented territory and there will absolutely be a constitutional crisis if Vance tries that. I think it's probably much safer for Vance to just keep up the illusion that Trump is in power even as he and his cabinet do whatever they want while telling Trump that these are his plans.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by activeStick

It's such an obvious thing for them to use to their advantage, and that's why the Dems haven't and won't!

I assume the Democrats have focused on other issues that drive turnout, like abortion.

Abortion seems to be driving a ton of women and young people to the polls.

I am not sure how much economic policies are moving the needles this election. As I mentioned previously, I don't think Economic Trump voters are looking at it rationally, and are using the same old schtick of "Conservatives are good for the economy"

I would give the dems the benefit of thinking it just didnt move the needle in polling or focus groups.

Which is a shame, as its arguably the most important issue

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

If he wins Vance isnt going to wait long, id bet on inside the first 100 days

Theres been a lot of rw noise complaining about women being able to vote. An example Ive seen; only one vote per household and the husband casts it.

I obviously don't know what the rules and conventions are but if there are any rumblings regarding Vance trying to get rid of Trump I would assume that Trump would fire him ASAP if there is a mechanism to do so.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I obviously don't know what the rules and conventions are but if there are any rumblings regarding Vance trying to get rid of Trump I would assume that Trump would fire him ASAP if there is a mechanism to do so.

There isn't, since Vance would be an elected official. What Trump could do is attempt to have Vance impeached and have congress vote to remove him. Vance would also need to get congress to vote to remove Trump. The crazy scenario of Vance sending a letter to congress to remove Trump, and Trump simultaneously telling congress to impeach and remove Vance is unlikely, but not unthinkable.

But Trump could remove anyone in his cabinet he suspects of not being 100% loyal to him and then Vance wouldn't have the votes in cabinet, but those cabinet replacements need to be approved by the senate as well. It's hard to say how the senate would react to a wholesale replacement of cabinet in the middle of the presidential term... a responsible senate would use that as an opportunity to try and create stability, but in this environment, who knows?

[calumniate]

Lock him up in his favourite cell. Hannibal lecture

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I know this is all more like the plot of 'House of Cards' than traditional politics, but we'd be in really unprecidented territory and there will absolutely be a constitutional crisis if Vance tries that. I think it's probably much safer for Vance to just keep up the illusion that Trump is in power even as he and his cabinet do whatever they want while telling Trump that these are his plans.

This is why I doubt anything would happen within the first few years at least of a 2nd Trump presidency, he's a very useful idiot for the GOP. With him occupying the spotlight Vance and others are free to start implementing Project 2025 in the shadows. They're probably banking on Trump sliding hard enough into dementia to trigger the democrats to invoke the 25th, then they'll "reluctantly agree" to remove Trump for the health of the nation or some other BS. But it can't be too fast, otherwise Trump will turn his cult against the GOP. They pretty much have to wait until he's too invalid to use twitter

[Sultan]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

I obviously don't know what the rules and conventions are but if there are any rumblings regarding Vance trying to get rid of Trump I would assume that Trump would fire him ASAP if there is a mechanism to do so.

In what world does someone think that you can fire a VP, especially after they are already on the ballot.

[Reggie Dunlop]

The President cannot fire the Vice President, as it is an elected office in its own right.

[Fuzz]

It's cute to see people discussing the nuances of what is and isn't legal, given Trump being president. Didn't the SC basically say the president could have whoever he wanted killed? He'd claim treason and the ####show would be full blown.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by activeStick

I can't remember if it was the 2016 or 2020 election (thinking 2016), but I remember you were a wealth of knowledge for one of those elections, with really solid, in-depth and reasonable takes.

It might have been both, but to be totally honest I have not spent anywhere near the same amount of time looking at the polling data for this election—I look at Nate Silver’s Silver Bulletin once in a while, but that’s about it. All I know is he’s saying it’s 50/50 which given who the candidates are sort of blows my mind.

There is a bit of an interesting possible story about pollster methodology and whether the changes they made since 2020 to their methodologies is actually going to make them underestimate Harris (Nate Cohn of the NYT had an interesting article about it — it has to do with weighting for recalled vote in 2020), but to be honest I can’t speak intelligently about that either. If Harris outperforms her polls that may turn into the post-election story, but honestly who knows?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It's cute to see people discussing the nuances of what is and isn't legal, given Trump being president. Didn't the SC basically say the president could have whoever he wanted killed? He'd claim treason and the ####show would be full blown.

I think you had to show it was in carrying out your duties as president with a broad latitude to what that meant. I think it was a stretch to argue it would allow him to order a US citizen killed. And even if the courts failed the remedy would be impeachment. That would have quite the controversial trial

[MegaErtz]

Trump still holds a huge lead. I think Harris has a good shot to win Wisconsin and Michigan. Pennsylvania is literally 50/50. Trump will handily win all of the other swing states. If she can carry Pennsylvania, that leaves her winning 270-268. All Trump has to do is win one of Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania.

We likely won't have a winner until this time next weekend.

[Sultan]

The pollsters definitely went through changes, and are very skewed but that is due to money and so Trump can say the polls showed this, so the election was rigged.

Same thing with the polymarket international betting site that all the trumpers were talking about.

Women are going to help Kamala to be close in places that she shouldn't, and make sure she wins in places she should.

Just an opinion.