Election 2020 - Page 216 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Doug64
#15122170
Biden is in serious trouble. Almost a year ago, during the Ohio primary debate, Biden stated that he would not pack the Supreme Court. That was in contrast to other primary candidates that said they would, including (I believe) Kamala Harris. Now, there’s this:

Biden declines to take a position on expanding Supreme Court

    Democratic presidential nominee Joseph R. Biden refused to say Monday whether he would consider expanding the number of seats on the Supreme Court if Republicans press forward to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    “It’s a legitimate question, but let me tell you why I’m not going answer. … It will shift the focus,” Mr. Biden told WBAY-TV in Wisconsin.

    He said President Trump “never wants to talk about the issue at hand.”

    “He always tries to change the subject,” he said. “Let’s say I answer that question. Then the whole debate’s going to be ‘well, Biden said or didn’t say. Biden said he would or wouldn’t.’ “

    Mr. Biden had said in July 2019 that he didn’t want to pack the high court.

    “We’ll live to rue that day,” he said.

    When she was still running for president, Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala D. Harris had said she was open to expanding the court.

    Liberals are calling on Senate Democrats to abolish the filibuster and expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court if Republicans push forward with the nomination process and Democrats control the House, Senate, and White House next year.

    Mr. Biden said over the weekend that the candidate who wins the presidential election on Nov. 3 should pick Justice Ginsburg’s replacement and that the standard that Republicans used in blocking the confirmation process of Judge Merrick Garland in 2016 should still apply now.

    Republicans say it was different then because the White House and Senate were controlled by different parties and that Democrats would move to quickly fill a vacancy if they were in the same position right now.

So let’s say Biden is actually telling the truth—he’s not avoiding announcing what he now supports, he is not trying to avoid alienating his core base. He really is trying to keep the focus on what he considers to be the “issue at hand” (or at least, what he wants it to be). What he wants isn’t going to matter.

His problem is that, his campaign is supposed to be all about the Wuhan virus and uniting the country. But for the first he is heavily depending on his allies in the MSM(D) to keep the focus on the Wuhan virus (unlike, say, the improving economy), and now that is going to be tough. With the Republican push to get the vote done before the election, that is going to be moving at breakneck speed with shiny new objects to report popping up constantly, including the Left’s reaction. It’s going to suck all the oxygen out of the room.

That loss of laser-like focus on the Wuhan pandemic will be bad enough, but worse is that, thanks to his decision to make the pandemic central to his campaign, Biden has no ground game to speak of while Trump definitely does. There were already Democrats in battleground states expressing concerns bout the effect that had before RBG’s death, now it becomes a crisis—and I don’t see his campaign ramping up a ground game now, not fast enough to make a difference.

And then there’s his campaign as the United of the country. How is that going to survive the Left’s almost certain eruption during the push to confirm Trump’s nominee? That is going to get ugly, the Kavanaugh fight all over again. And Democrats are already saying that if the Republicans go through with this and they win the Senate, they’re going to scuttle the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, and add two more states to make sure their majority stays that way. That might be a conquest, but it certainly isn’t what most people think of when they hear the phrase “a united country.” And his refusal to reject at least two of those three (the filibuster and packing the Court) at least leaves open the possibility that he’s on board with all three (not that as president he’d have anything to say about the filibuster anyway, though as vice president Harris might).

In one respect, those calling for abolishing the filibuster are right—in its current form, it needs to go. If I was Majority Leader McConnell, and if Republicans hold onto the Senate, I would push to have the filibuster returned to its previous form, with the vote needing 2/3—or even 3/5—of those present, rather than the current 3/5 of all Senators. To sweeten the pot for Democrats, I’d have that filibuster again apply to judicial appointments. After all, with with this last win and the Senate Republicans’ long push to get as many of Trump’s nominees confirmed as possible, that already works out to a victory. The question would be whether Democrats would accept a negotiated surrender and a return to normalcy.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15122174
Here it is folks. jimjam's election prediction ….. :eek: . Biden will win by two electoral votes and Donald will immediately concede saying:" The people have spoken and I accept their verdict. Joe is a good man and he fought the good fight. I wish him well." :eek:
#15122179
Drlee wrote:Abortion is not a binary choice. Abortions fell under Obama.


Fix the social problems that demotivate a woman to have a child and the abortion rate will fall. The republicans are building a society in which abortions are inevitable. So we want that poor person to have a child. I know. Let's cut her benefits and take away her health care.

Consider that before you claim righteousness.

I believe abortions have been falling just about every year for a long time.

Abortions would also fall dramatically if everyone used proper birth control. At least 2 methods.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15122220
I love the "Biden is in trouble" meme that the republicans are trying to float.

We have to dangle on this fucking rope for another five weeks. I have not watched the news in two weeks and will not until after the election is decided in Trump's personal Supreme Court. It is ironic that what he could not steal fate gave him.

We will not know who is president by Christmas. By then there will be another 200,000 dead of covid. At this point I really don't care which tribe scalps the other. Democracy is over, for all intent and purpose, with the death of RBG.
By Rugoz
#15122228
Drlee wrote:Democracy is over, for all intent and purpose, with the death of RBG.


I think the appointed justice won't be a Trump stooge. There are enough moderate Senators who will prevent that. Such as Romney. But it will lead to a conservative majority in a country that is increasingly liberal.

Meanwhile California inches closer to a vote on secession:
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/th ... -secession
By Pants-of-dog
#15122230
Trump could go one of two ways for the SCOTUS pick: he could either nominate a moderate conservative woman as a judge, which the establishment Republicans would like, or he could do his usual gambit of deliberately pissing off the people called “liberals” and find someone like Kavanaugh all over again.
#15122231
Drlee wrote:Democracy is over, for all intent and purpose, with the death of RBG.

How is that possible if The POTUS and Senate who decide the SCOTUS is both elected.

The very real potential for abuse is there. It will all depend on how things go down between Nov. and Jan.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15122242
Drlee wrote:We will not know who is president by Christmas.

Yes. We will. States have to submit their results in early December. It's federal law. That's why the Florida recount got shut down in Bush v. Gore.

Drlee wrote:Democracy is over, for all intent and purpose, with the death of RBG.

Hilarious. You call yourself a conservative, too. :roll:

Rugoz wrote:I think the appointed justice won't be a Trump stooge.

Amy Coney Barret won't. She's already an establishment stooge. Barbara Lagoa won't be either, but she'd be the more interesting political pick.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Trump could go one of two ways for the SCOTUS pick: he could either nominate a moderate conservative woman as a judge, which the establishment Republicans would like, or he could do his usual gambit of deliberately pissing off the people called “liberals” and find someone like Kavanaugh all over again.

It's likely he pics either Amy Coney Barret or Barbara Lagoa. Barret clerked for Scalia and has the pedigree the establishment likes. Lagoa is Cuban-American (read Latina), anti-communist, pro-choice and Catholic too. It will be much harder for the Democrats to attack Lagoa.
User avatar
By ingliz
#15122250
blackjack21 wrote:the Florida recount got shut down in Bush v. Gore.

Florida's Supreme Court ruled in favour of Gore; ditching principle and precedent, the 'conservative' majority on the Supreme court installed Bush.

So much for conservative Justices upholding State's rights.

Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

— Justice John Paul Stevens


:lol:
By Doug64
#15122277
@ingliz, the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors ...” Stevens was right, when you have state judges overriding the laws and procedures put in place by the state legislature—the body constitutionally empowered to make those laws and procedures—in an attempt to push a preferred candidate over the finish line, it shakes “the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”
User avatar
By ingliz
#15122282
Doug64 wrote:Stevens was right

Justice John Paul Stevens was one of the dissenting judges.

Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer joined.

According to Stevens,

Counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm [...] Preventing the recount from being completed will inevitably cast a cloud on the legitimacy of the election.


:lol:
By Doug64
#15122312
@ingliz, I should have added [sarcasm][/sarcasm] markers.
User avatar
By Beren
#15122322
Drlee wrote:I love the "Biden is in trouble" meme that the republicans are trying to float.

He's been considered ~12-18% more likely to win than Trump by the bookies for two weeks, actually.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#15122323
Beren wrote:He's been considered ~12-18% more likely to win than Trump by the bookies for two weeks, actually.



Biden is in trouble, as he will only loose support from now till election.
Unless the Dems do something fishy, Trump will win and win big.
User avatar
By Beren
#15122324
Oxymoron wrote:Biden is in trouble, as he will only loose support from now till election.
Unless the Dems do something fishy, Trump will win and win big.

Thanks for your opinion, although the bookies' odds are not opinions, they're supposed to be rational expectations.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#15122328
Beren wrote:Thanks for your opinion, although the bookies' odds are not opinions, they're supposed to be rational expectations.


What were the odds in 2016?

Clinton remains a substantial favorite, with odds hovering around -300 – meaning one must bet $300 to win $100. Meanwhile, Trump is in the range of a +275 underdog – meaning a $100 bet could bring in $275.



Published November 1, 2016


85% chance of Clinton winning the US election, say UK betting firms

UPDATED WED, OCT 26 201610:10 AM EDT
User avatar
By Beren
#15122333
Oxymoron wrote:What were the odds in 2016?

Clinton remains a substantial favorite, with odds hovering around -300 – meaning one must bet $300 to win $100. Meanwhile, Trump is in the range of a +275 underdog – meaning a $100 bet could bring in $275.

Published November 1, 2016

The bookies can be wrong, of course, but it's still opinions vs rational expectations. PoFoers like pretending to have the latter ones (usually called predictions) while having the first ones actually, but even that is not true because they have wishes rather than opinions in many cases.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#15122343
Beren wrote:The bookies can be wrong, of course, but it's still opinions vs rational expectations. PoFoers like pretending to have the latter ones (usually called predictions) while having the first ones actually, but even that is not true because they have wishes rather than opinions in many cases.



Rational expectations? Based on the betting habits of addicts?
How accurate have the bookies been on Presidential elections?
  • 1
  • 214
  • 215
  • 216
  • 217
  • 218
  • 246

Another profoundly idiotic post If Drlee says […]

October 22, Wednesday It appears, after two wee[…]

WHAT A DISGUSTING PIECE OF SHIT THIS FORUM HAS BEC[…]

@Pants-of-dog As long as we understand that yo[…]