So I keep seeing headlines saying that the GOP is closing the gap with voter registration, which seems frightening. But it also sounds like this doesn't necessarily translate into votes? Forgive me if this has already been discussed in the thread.
In the last few weeks, Joe Biden has led President Donald Trump by a fairly consistent 8-point average in national polls and has maintained leads in more than enough battleground states to win the Electoral College, including Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — all states Trump won in 2016.
But there are signs Trump's ground operation is paying off when it comes to registering new voters in key states, an advantage that could become important if the race tightens before Nov. 3.
Quote:
As deadlines approach, new data from the past few months shows Republicans have swamped Democrats in adding new voters to the rolls, a dramatic GOP improvement over 2016, even if new registrations have lagged 2016 rates across the board. It's a sign that in a pandemic, Democrats are struggling to seize traditional opportunities to pad their margins, such as the return of students to college campuses.
Of the six states Trump won by less than 5 points in 2016, four — Arizona, Florida, North Carolina and Pennsylvania — permit voters to register by party. In all four states, voter registration trends are more robust for the GOP than four years ago.
Quote:
Trump's voter registration edge alone wouldn't be nearly sufficient to offset the leads Biden is posting in polls of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and probably Arizona. But if the race tightens or there's a substantial polling error, Trump's superior base growth could make a difference in a few tight states — and call into question why the Biden campaign chose to forgo hitting the streets.
The courts that have now been packed by the Republicans? In concept, the districts should be in the best position to select but the reality is the hyper-partisanship of the lower court appointment process. Having them select the SCOTUS just pushes the power around and does not solve the problem.
Yes. The courts have 100% been packed by Republicans, and it goes far deeper than SCOTUS. A lot has been made in this thread about RBG being selfish and not stepping down: she would've needed to step down quite early in Obama's presidency if she was going to be replaced. Mitch McConnell was positively gleeful about his ability to halt Obama judicial nominees from the top down. That's why Trump has been able to appoint an appalling number of federal judges: McConnell refused Obama's ability to fill them. McConnell purposefully held judicial seats open for years only to then fast-track Trump appointees, many of whom are horrendously underqualified.
RBG knew well before 2016 that McConnell was not letting Obama fill her seat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch
Speaking of nuclear option, wouldn't (re-)establishing a super-majority requirement for SC confirmation go a long way to bringing more moderate candidates into it?
I actually really like this as an option: a president would be forced to choose nominees who aren't hyperpartisan, as you would need at least some support from both parties to get someone appointed to the SCOTUS.
I agree that I don't love the idea of adding seats: it creates an ongoing issue. Instead, I honestly would like to see the nominations/hearings/votes for both Kavanaugh and Barrett investigated. Kavanaugh lied in his hearings, Barrett refused to answer legal questions and she was advanced to a vote in a way that broke Senate rules (at least 2 members of the minority party are meant to be present to advance, no democrats were present for her advancement). I would rather seek possible impeachment of one or both as justices, rather than expanding the court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ark2
Garland was nominated in 2016, so this comment makes no sense.
I mentioned this above but: McConnell was blocking Obama judicial nominees well before 2016. RBG wasn't stupid. She knew McConnell would block her seat being filled by Obama. She hoped that if she held out, Clinton would win, and McConnell would eventually be forced to put nominees to vote.
Those numbers for PA make me feel so much better. Trump won by such a razor thin margin in 2016, with that many more votes, it makes PA a much harder state for him to win.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
That list of celebrities that support trump...Yeesh, what a world we live in. I question the intelligence of celebrities on a regular basis anyway and combine that with supporting trump? I’m sorry but you clearly have the IQ of a houseplant.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mightyfire89 For This Useful Post:
Miles Taylor is on Cuomo right now and just eviscerating Trump on every issue Cuomo can think of. He's amazingly good at this.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
That list of celebrities that support trump...Yeesh, what a world we live in. I question the intelligence of celebrities on a regular basis anyway and combine that with supporting trump? I’m sorry but you clearly have the IQ of a houseplant.
Why??? Based on the income of most celebrities it is in their financial best interest to support trump from a tax standpoint. There is a simple math tradeoff that they can do based on the source of celebrity that calculates losses/gains associated with supporting trump and subtract that from their Biden related tax losses.
In many cases it would be irrational for high income earners not to support trump. It doesn't make it right...but it makes rational sense...
First, ignoring the false dichotomy, that implies that Biden is an admirable candidate at beating Trump. As the poster that started this discussion stated, from 330M people, there should be a few around somewhere that might be better than Biden for that purpose.
Second, there is no THEN in 'then go about rebuilding the nation'. If you beat Trump, rebuilding the nation is where you're at. It isn't like there is a lot of foresight required in realizing that fact. Nor is it a bridge to be crossed later. If you beat Trump, you have to govern.
Right but you don't get that chance if you don't beat him.
Maybe there was someone who had an equal or better chance of beating him - but that name isn't obvious to me.
The Quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little, and it will fail, to the ruin of all. Yet hope remains while the Company is true. Go Flames Go!
Why??? Based on the income of most celebrities it is in their financial best interest to support trump from a tax standpoint. There is a simple math tradeoff that they can do based on the source of celebrity that calculates losses/gains associated with supporting trump and subtract that from their Biden related tax losses.
In many cases it would be irrational for high income earners not to support trump. It doesn't make it right...but it makes rational sense...
Yes. The courts have 100% been packed by Republicans, and it goes far deeper than SCOTUS. A lot has been made in this thread about RBG being selfish and not stepping down: she would've needed to step down quite early in Obama's presidency if she was going to be replaced. Mitch McConnell was positively gleeful about his ability to halt Obama judicial nominees from the top down. That's why Trump has been able to appoint an appalling number of federal judges: McConnell refused Obama's ability to fill them. McConnell purposefully held judicial seats open for years only to then fast-track Trump appointees, many of whom are horrendously underqualified.
RBG knew well before 2016 that McConnell was not letting Obama fill her seat.
I actually really like this as an option: a president would be forced to choose nominees who aren't hyperpartisan, as you would need at least some support from both parties to get someone appointed to the SCOTUS.
I agree that I don't love the idea of adding seats: it creates an ongoing issue. Instead, I honestly would like to see the nominations/hearings/votes for both Kavanaugh and Barrett investigated. Kavanaugh lied in his hearings, Barrett refused to answer legal questions and she was advanced to a vote in a way that broke Senate rules (at least 2 members of the minority party are meant to be present to advance, no democrats were present for her advancement). I would rather seek possible impeachment of one or both as justices, rather than expanding the court.
I mentioned this above but: McConnell was blocking Obama judicial nominees well before 2016. RBG wasn't stupid. She knew McConnell would block her seat being filled by Obama. She hoped that if she held out, Clinton would win, and McConnell would eventually be forced to put nominees to vote.
Those numbers for PA make me feel so much better. Trump won by such a razor thin margin in 2016, with that many more votes, it makes PA a much harder state for him to win.
I saw somewhere that he won each of MI, PA, and WI by one county in each state. Macomb County, MI; York County, PA and Waukesha County, WI.
Biden was the best candidate of the bunch and his victory in the primaries is evidence of that.
Sanders - Socialist label baggage would likely see him lose to Trump badly.
Klobuchar - Accomplished and smart, but the voting population of the US is still very sexist.
Warren - See above comments, though personally, I like her record of going after banks and CEOs.
Buttigieg - Good resume. Veteran and intelligent. Americas weird though, are they ready to elect a gay man?
Harris - Same issue unfortunately as the other women candidates. Highly accomplished.
Yang - Not popular enough and his banner policy wouldn't be popular for the majority because well, "Socialist!!".
I would pick Mayor Pete in a second as my president, but good resume?? He's too much of a wild card for a lot of reasons, and didn't really have the black support.
I agree that a far left like Sanders would have made it a much more complicated race. I don't think he'd have been blown out, but it becomes a referendum on Trump mixed with a referendum on Socialism, and a lot of people choosing between the lesser of two evils.
I think there is a lot of sexism in the rust belt that would make a woman a risky bet.
Biden is the right choice for this particular race. Hopefully he restores some relationships with other countries, restores institutions, gets health care going in the right direction, climate issues in the right direction, gets us through COVID and passes it on to someone else after 4 years.
The Following User Says Thank You to nfotiu For This Useful Post:
I would pick Mayor Pete in a second as my president, but good resume?? He's too much of a wild card for a lot of reasons, and didn't really have the black support.
I agree that a far left like Sanders would have made it a much more complicated race. I don't think he'd have been blown out, but it becomes a referendum on Trump mixed with a referendum on Socialism, and a lot of people choosing between the lesser of two evils.
I think there is a lot of sexism in the rust belt that would make a woman a risky bet.
Biden is the right choice for this particular race. Hopefully he restores some relationships with other countries, restores institutions, gets health care going in the right direction, climate issues in the right direction, gets us through COVID and passes it on to someone else after 4 years.
Yup. Biden should be able to hopefully get the right and the left to start talking to each other again as he's done in the past. A big part of his first term will be to bring America back to their normal.
