Poll

Who do you think will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

Donald Trump
105 (29.6%)
Joe Biden
230 (64.8%)
3rd-Party Candidate or Black Swan Event (e.g., Trump or Biden dies)
20 (5.6%)

Total Members Voted: 352

Author Topic: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?  (Read 163460 times)

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2073
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1450 on: November 09, 2020, 02:10:44 PM »
I think Dems have an uphill battle in GA. Considering how surprisingly well Reps did in the election (except Trump), seems that voters are rejecting Trump, but also rejecting much of the rhetoric of the left.

The Fox News version of the left's rhetoric. ;)

No, I don't watch Fox. I'm referring to Democrats talking about expanding the Supreme Court and eliminating the filibuster. I'm not too worried honestly. I remember when Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster for Judicial appointments and now ~25% of the Judiciary have been appointed by Trump. So have fun with no filibuster... while you have power...

Democrats eye expanding Supreme Court if Trump's nominee is confirmed

Quote
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told members of his conference that "nothing is off the table" if Democrats retake the Senate, indicating that he is willing to consider expanding the court. Senator Ed Markey, one of the more progressive Democrats in the Senate, has called outright for eliminating the filibuster and expanding the court. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler tweeted that if the Republican Senate confirms a justice after Election Day but before a new Congress is sworn in, "then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court."
If they expand the court then that are short sighted fools for the reasons you cite and others.  Biden has it right.  It just becomes and ongoing game.  They expand to 13, then when the lose in 4 years because the moderates are pissed, the Republicans will expand it to 15 or 17.  Where does it end?  How about we pass laws that cannot be declared unconstitutional?  How about we pass laws that the majority of the country agrees with so they do not get challenged?  Work within the rules of the game, so not seek to change the game every time something happens you do not like.

You first have to back it up and understand that the game started when McConnell stole 2 SC seats. So we are saying that there are 2 sides to this: Conservative Dems saying that we should for the sake of maintaining the appearance of a game, just allow the GOP to have those seats and move on. Liberal Dems are of another mind that says that the GOP need to be repudiated for stealing the seats and have that rectified through court expansion.

In my opinion, the first solution only leads to the GOP feeling encouraged to do it again. Which is absolutely what you will see. McConnell will start slow rolling all federal judges appointments again to basically a trickle and hope for another GOP president in 2024 to then fill all the vacancies he caused. The second I guess has a chance of becoming a slippery slope, but the weakness of the SC has already been exposed by the GOP, so the only route to reform is to exploit it so that the GOP come to the table on more permanent reform.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1975
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1451 on: November 09, 2020, 02:12:38 PM »
I think Dems have an uphill battle in GA. Considering how surprisingly well Reps did in the election (except Trump), seems that voters are rejecting Trump, but also rejecting much of the rhetoric of the left.

The Fox News version of the left's rhetoric. ;)

No, I don't watch Fox. I'm referring to Democrats talking about expanding the Supreme Court and eliminating the filibuster. I'm not too worried honestly. I remember when Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster for Judicial appointments and now ~25% of the Judiciary have been appointed by Trump. So have fun with no filibuster... while you have power...

Democrats eye expanding Supreme Court if Trump's nominee is confirmed

Quote
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told members of his conference that "nothing is off the table" if Democrats retake the Senate, indicating that he is willing to consider expanding the court. Senator Ed Markey, one of the more progressive Democrats in the Senate, has called outright for eliminating the filibuster and expanding the court. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler tweeted that if the Republican Senate confirms a justice after Election Day but before a new Congress is sworn in, "then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court."
If they expand the court then that are short sighted fools for the reasons you cite and others.  Biden has it right.  It just becomes and ongoing game.  They expand to 13, then when the lose in 4 years because the moderates are pissed, the Republicans will expand it to 15 or 17.  Where does it end?  How about we pass laws that cannot be declared unconstitutional?  How about we pass laws that the majority of the country agrees with so they do not get challenged?  Work within the rules of the game, so not seek to change the game every time something happens you do not like.

You first have to back it up and understand that the game started when McConnell stole 2 SC seats. So we are saying that there are 2 sides to this: Conservative Dems saying that we should for the sake of maintaining the appearance of a game, just allow the GOP to have those seats and move on. Liberal Dems are of another mind that says that the GOP need to be repudiated for stealing the seats and have that rectified through court expansion.

In my opinion, the first solution only leads to the GOP feeling encouraged to do it again. Which is absolutely what you will see. McConnell will start slow rolling all federal judges appointments again to basically a trickle and hope for another GOP president in 2024 to then fill all the vacancies he caused. The second I guess has a chance of becoming a slippery slope, but the weakness of the SC has already been exposed by the GOP, so the only route to reform is to exploit it so that the GOP come to the table on more permanent reform.
I totally disagree.  No better case of "two wrongs don't make a right" exists than this.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2073
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1452 on: November 09, 2020, 02:16:15 PM »
I think Dems have an uphill battle in GA. Considering how surprisingly well Reps did in the election (except Trump), seems that voters are rejecting Trump, but also rejecting much of the rhetoric of the left.

The Fox News version of the left's rhetoric. ;)

No, I don't watch Fox. I'm referring to Democrats talking about expanding the Supreme Court and eliminating the filibuster. I'm not too worried honestly. I remember when Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster for Judicial appointments and now ~25% of the Judiciary have been appointed by Trump. So have fun with no filibuster... while you have power...

Democrats eye expanding Supreme Court if Trump's nominee is confirmed

Quote
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told members of his conference that "nothing is off the table" if Democrats retake the Senate, indicating that he is willing to consider expanding the court. Senator Ed Markey, one of the more progressive Democrats in the Senate, has called outright for eliminating the filibuster and expanding the court. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler tweeted that if the Republican Senate confirms a justice after Election Day but before a new Congress is sworn in, "then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court."
If they expand the court then that are short sighted fools for the reasons you cite and others.  Biden has it right.  It just becomes and ongoing game.  They expand to 13, then when the lose in 4 years because the moderates are pissed, the Republicans will expand it to 15 or 17.  Where does it end?  How about we pass laws that cannot be declared unconstitutional?  How about we pass laws that the majority of the country agrees with so they do not get challenged?  Work within the rules of the game, so not seek to change the game every time something happens you do not like.

You first have to back it up and understand that the game started when McConnell stole 2 SC seats. So we are saying that there are 2 sides to this: Conservative Dems saying that we should for the sake of maintaining the appearance of a game, just allow the GOP to have those seats and move on. Liberal Dems are of another mind that says that the GOP need to be repudiated for stealing the seats and have that rectified through court expansion.

In my opinion, the first solution only leads to the GOP feeling encouraged to do it again. Which is absolutely what you will see. McConnell will start slow rolling all federal judges appointments again to basically a trickle and hope for another GOP president in 2024 to then fill all the vacancies he caused. The second I guess has a chance of becoming a slippery slope, but the weakness of the SC has already been exposed by the GOP, so the only route to reform is to exploit it so that the GOP come to the table on more permanent reform.
I totally disagree.  No better case of "two wrongs don't make a right" exists than this.

That's it? McConnell made 2 wrongs and will continue to do wrong going forward. Do not be surprised if the GOP keeps the Senate in 2022 they will basically deny Biden a SC judge for a full 2 years. You've submitted no solution to the current wrongdoing.

Plus, it's laughable to characterize court expansion as a "wrong". It is fully within congressional power to decide the size of the court.

sui generis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3150
  • she/her
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1453 on: November 09, 2020, 02:22:48 PM »
Also agree that if Dems don't fire back, McConnell keeps going in perpetuity, unchastened.  Game theory tells us that you HAVE to hit back when someone has violated has hit.  If you never retaliate, they learn they can always take advantage.  It's conclusive human psychology.
 Where does it end?  With a 20 person SCOTUS?  A 30 person SCOTUS?  Is this a terrible thing?  Why?  In fact, 30 justices sounds pretty good to me. Then we don't all have to freak out every time one of them gets a cough.  It *shouldn't* be a big deal to the entire country when one person retires or dies.  Also, we used to have the same number of SCOTUS justices as circuits in the federal court system and now we have falled behind by 4.  So we should *at least* add that many.

There's no reason 9 is a magic number.  It just happens to be the most recent number we've used.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 39
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1454 on: November 09, 2020, 02:24:25 PM »
You first have to back it up and understand that the game started when McConnell stole 2 SC seats.

Well he stole one. Garland should have had a vote in 2016. That was true in 2016 and since too. Barrett's nomination isn't "stolen" per se, it just shows in sharp contrast how dishonest and thieving the Republican party is. If Garland had been seated in 2016 then Barrett's nomination (while I'm sure there would have still been a big fight over it) wouldn't actually have been a big deal.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7806
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1455 on: November 09, 2020, 02:26:26 PM »
Also agree that if Dems don't fire back, McConnell keeps going in perpetuity, unchastened.  Game theory tells us that you HAVE to hit back when someone has violated has hit.  If you never retaliate, they learn they can always take advantage.  It's conclusive human psychology.
 Where does it end?  With a 20 person SCOTUS?  A 30 person SCOTUS?  Is this a terrible thing?  Why?  In fact, 30 justices sounds pretty good to me. Then we don't all have to freak out every time one of them gets a cough.  It *shouldn't* be a big deal to the entire country when one person retires or dies.  Also, we used to have the same number of SCOTUS justices as circuits in the federal court system and now we have falled behind by 4.  So we should *at least* add that many.

There's no reason 9 is a magic number.  It just happens to be the most recent number we've used.

Exactly. It was expanded and shrunk a few times during the ~1860s. It didn't balloon to 30 then and it won't balloon to 30 now. The US didn't collapse under the weight of too many Justices.


FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2073
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1456 on: November 09, 2020, 02:28:05 PM »
You first have to back it up and understand that the game started when McConnell stole 2 SC seats.

Well he stole one. Garland should have had a vote in 2016. That was true in 2016 and since too. Barrett's nomination isn't "stolen" per se, it just shows in sharp contrast how dishonest and thieving the Republican party is. If Garland had been seated in 2016 then Barrett's nomination (while I'm sure there would have still been a big fight over it) wouldn't actually have been a big deal.

I will agree that Garland's denial of a vote was far more egregious, and that if we were at the very least had consistent rules that McConnell was following, yes, it would only be 1 stolen seat. The GOP basically held a SC seat open for a full year, and I don't see any reason why they wouldn't try and stretch that to 1.5-2 years.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1975
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1457 on: November 09, 2020, 02:35:07 PM »
Also agree that if Dems don't fire back, McConnell keeps going in perpetuity, unchastened.  Game theory tells us that you HAVE to hit back when someone has violated has hit.  If you never retaliate, they learn they can always take advantage.  It's conclusive human psychology.
 Where does it end?  With a 20 person SCOTUS?  A 30 person SCOTUS?  Is this a terrible thing?  Why?  In fact, 30 justices sounds pretty good to me. Then we don't all have to freak out every time one of them gets a cough.  It *shouldn't* be a big deal to the entire country when one person retires or dies.  Also, we used to have the same number of SCOTUS justices as circuits in the federal court system and now we have falled behind by 4.  So we should *at least* add that many.

There's no reason 9 is a magic number.  It just happens to be the most recent number we've used.
It also would not a big deal if people understood that SC does not make law it enforces it.  This boogeyman of the SC influence on sounds legislation is just that.  If our electorate continues to not understand how they system works and gets all worked up then we are doomed.

Let's walk back what McConnell did.  Obama and the Dems could have pushed for a nomination vote and kept nominating justices if they got turned down.  Nothing that happened was not allowed per FIPurpose's note.  It is fully within congressional power to approve or disprove justices.  I think in fairness this last nomination should have waited, but it is exactly the point I am making.  Using every tool at your disposal because the constitution allows it even though fair play does not (look at the numbers that disapproved of this last appointment happening before the election.  Clearly many Republicans also agreed it was not party line at 70%+ disapproving).  Tit for tat and game theory are a dangerous game to play with government and just encourage the divisive government we have now.  You are right that Garland should have had a vote, and letting the Democrats off scot free because they did not push for one just cried in the corner, especially Obama, is not examining the record as it should be.  Using your own words about "dishonest and thieving" making the Democrats "dishonest and theiving" too makes it OK?  How foolish is that?  Or is it not dishonest because they have said they would like to do it?  You might be OK in your conscience making that point, but I would hope no one could with a straight face say it is not just as "thieving".  I am the king of the playground now to I move the free throw line because the constitution does not say I can't.  Come on.  At least have the decency to say you got played and now you want to play them back and stoop to their level, but please do not claim some moral high ground like court packing is any different than what the Republicans did.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1975
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1458 on: November 09, 2020, 02:37:09 PM »
I think Dems have an uphill battle in GA. Considering how surprisingly well Reps did in the election (except Trump), seems that voters are rejecting Trump, but also rejecting much of the rhetoric of the left.

The Fox News version of the left's rhetoric. ;)

No, I don't watch Fox. I'm referring to Democrats talking about expanding the Supreme Court and eliminating the filibuster. I'm not too worried honestly. I remember when Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster for Judicial appointments and now ~25% of the Judiciary have been appointed by Trump. So have fun with no filibuster... while you have power...

Democrats eye expanding Supreme Court if Trump's nominee is confirmed

Quote
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told members of his conference that "nothing is off the table" if Democrats retake the Senate, indicating that he is willing to consider expanding the court. Senator Ed Markey, one of the more progressive Democrats in the Senate, has called outright for eliminating the filibuster and expanding the court. House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler tweeted that if the Republican Senate confirms a justice after Election Day but before a new Congress is sworn in, "then the incoming Senate should immediately move to expand the Supreme Court."
If they expand the court then that are short sighted fools for the reasons you cite and others.  Biden has it right.  It just becomes and ongoing game.  They expand to 13, then when the lose in 4 years because the moderates are pissed, the Republicans will expand it to 15 or 17.  Where does it end?  How about we pass laws that cannot be declared unconstitutional?  How about we pass laws that the majority of the country agrees with so they do not get challenged?  Work within the rules of the game, so not seek to change the game every time something happens you do not like.

I totally understand this sentiment. If no one stops the cycle, the race to the bottom will only continue, on both sides. I also must ask: are posters here holding Democrats to a higher standard than Republicans, who have spent the last 4 years shredding norms and precedents, weaponizing Senate rules to be completely obstructionist and avoid bringing legislation to the floor, denying a Supreme Court nominee a hearing in one case, then shoving through another nominee because they could? Do Democrats have a special responsibility to take the higher ground when Republicans have done nothing of the sort? Are you calling Republicans to the same higher ground?
Yes I am calling both parties to stop acting like petulant children dressed up in adult clothing.


caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1975
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1459 on: November 09, 2020, 02:41:18 PM »
Also agree that if Dems don't fire back, McConnell keeps going in perpetuity, unchastened.  Game theory tells us that you HAVE to hit back when someone has violated has hit.  If you never retaliate, they learn they can always take advantage.  It's conclusive human psychology.
 Where does it end?  With a 20 person SCOTUS?  A 30 person SCOTUS?  Is this a terrible thing?  Why?  In fact, 30 justices sounds pretty good to me. Then we don't all have to freak out every time one of them gets a cough.  It *shouldn't* be a big deal to the entire country when one person retires or dies.  Also, we used to have the same number of SCOTUS justices as circuits in the federal court system and now we have falled behind by 4.  So we should *at least* add that many.

There's no reason 9 is a magic number.  It just happens to be the most recent number we've used.

Exactly. It was expanded and shrunk a few times during the ~1860s. It didn't balloon to 30 then and it won't balloon to 30 now. The US didn't collapse under the weight of too many Justices.
Yes an the politics of the day were still driven by politicians who did it for the good of the country and as a service rather than making a job out of it and pandering.  My opinion is the two eras are not comparable and this will be dangerous as it just continues the pettiness.  Someone needs to be the better party first, and it can be exploited, but the solution then is to stay infuriated enough as an electorate that you turn out in droves each election and never let the other party have power again.  Why is that not an option rather than simple taking advantage of the moment?  If people cared so much they would actually vote.  Maybe we need to call a spade a spade and say that most people just do not care?

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 39
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1460 on: November 09, 2020, 02:41:33 PM »
Using every tool at your disposal because the constitution allows it even though fair play does not (look at the numbers that disapproved of this last appointment happening before the election.  Clearly many Republicans also agreed it was not party line at 70%+ disapproving).

I don't buy it. Republicans rode an enormous wave of support this year that mostly canceled out the blue wave and lead to more-or-less no changes in Congress. Republicans are obviously not mad about the Barrett nomination.

Using your own words about "dishonest and thieving" making the Democrats "dishonest and theiving" too makes it OK?  How foolish is that?

Because turnabout is fair play. Because when "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" fails, then you ought to at least be allowed to do to others what they are already doing to you.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2073
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1461 on: November 09, 2020, 02:45:10 PM »
It also would not a big deal if people understood that SC does not make law it enforces it.  This boogeyman of the SC influence on sounds legislation is just that.  If our electorate continues to not understand how they system works and gets all worked up then we are doomed.

Let's walk back what McConnell did.  Obama and the Dems could have pushed for a nomination vote and kept nominating justices if they got turned down. 

1. You can't unvote a SC off the court except through impeachment. So no idea what that means

2. Obama and Dems did do this. They fundamentally didn't have the seats on the SC to do it. Are Dems bad at pushing a unified message showing the GOP for what they are? Yes, but you didn't really provide anything here with how to punish McConnell for his power grab when Obama and the Dems could have done what? Complained more?

The alternative would be for congress to pass a bill limiting the scope of the SC, but I doubt the GOP would be in favor of that either now that they have total control. But I guess you would also see that as "wrongdoing". Apparently anything other than "let's just give McConnell a slap on the wrist" is childish and dangerous.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 39
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1462 on: November 09, 2020, 02:47:19 PM »
Someone needs to be the better party first, and it can be exploited, but the solution then is to stay infuriated enough as an electorate that you turn out in droves each election and never let the other party have power again.  Why is that not an option rather than simple taking advantage of the moment?  If people cared so much they would actually vote.  Maybe we need to call a spade a spade and say that most people just do not care?

Didn't you just undermine your whole argument here? People obviously do not care, or else Republicans would have been punished for stealing the SC seat, either this year or in 2016. But they weren't. So obviously Democrats have to play just as dirty to avoid being run over.

This is an academic discussion now though. Even if the Dems did win both Georgia run-offs (which I find extremely unlikely) there is zero chance that they'll be able to expand the SC with a 50-seat "majority", even if they actually wanted to (which they don't, and Biden has said so). Joe Manchin for one has already said he's against it.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1975
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1463 on: November 09, 2020, 02:47:27 PM »
Using every tool at your disposal because the constitution allows it even though fair play does not (look at the numbers that disapproved of this last appointment happening before the election.  Clearly many Republicans also agreed it was not party line at 70%+ disapproving).

I don't buy it. Republicans rode an enormous wave of support this year that mostly canceled out the blue wave and lead to more-or-less no changes in Congress. Republicans are obviously not mad about the Barrett nomination.

Using your own words about "dishonest and thieving" making the Democrats "dishonest and theiving" too makes it OK?  How foolish is that?

Because turnabout is fair play. Because when "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" fails, then you ought to at least be allowed to do to others what they are already doing to you.
I am sad to respond.

"do unto others" is meant to be used to drive better outcomes, not worse ones.  I think you know that otherwise how are you not being petty?

To your first point, just because it did not drive their ultimate votes does not mean their did not disapprove.  I am a Repbublican who is also a Christian and therefore am pro-life but I voted for Biden.  I did not approve of the nomination but understood it was legal.  I also do not feel Roe v Wade should be reversed as that would be harmful.  Saying that two things cannot be true when they can is obviously not accurate.

Freedom2016

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1464 on: November 09, 2020, 02:52:49 PM »
Also agree that if Dems don't fire back, McConnell keeps going in perpetuity, unchastened.  Game theory tells us that you HAVE to hit back when someone has violated has hit.  If you never retaliate, they learn they can always take advantage.  It's conclusive human psychology.
 Where does it end?  With a 20 person SCOTUS?  A 30 person SCOTUS?  Is this a terrible thing?  Why?  In fact, 30 justices sounds pretty good to me. Then we don't all have to freak out every time one of them gets a cough.  It *shouldn't* be a big deal to the entire country when one person retires or dies.  Also, we used to have the same number of SCOTUS justices as circuits in the federal court system and now we have falled behind by 4.  So we should *at least* add that many.

There's no reason 9 is a magic number.  It just happens to be the most recent number we've used.
It also would not a big deal if people understood that SC does not make law it enforces it.  This boogeyman of the SC influence on sounds legislation is just that.  If our electorate continues to not understand how they system works and gets all worked up then we are doomed.

Let's walk back what McConnell did.  Obama and the Dems could have pushed for a nomination vote and kept nominating justices if they got turned down.  Nothing that happened was not allowed per FIPurpose's note.  It is fully within congressional power to approve or disprove justices.  I think in fairness this last nomination should have waited, but it is exactly the point I am making.  Using every tool at your disposal because the constitution allows it even though fair play does not (look at the numbers that disapproved of this last appointment happening before the election.  Clearly many Republicans also agreed it was not party line at 70%+ disapproving).  Tit for tat and game theory are a dangerous game to play with government and just encourage the divisive government we have now.  You are right that Garland should have had a vote, and letting the Democrats off scot free because they did not push for one just cried in the corner, especially Obama, is not examining the record as it should be.  Using your own words about "dishonest and thieving" making the Democrats "dishonest and theiving" too makes it OK?  How foolish is that?  Or is it not dishonest because they have said they would like to do it?  You might be OK in your conscience making that point, but I would hope no one could with a straight face say it is not just as "thieving".  I am the king of the playground now to I move the free throw line because the constitution does not say I can't.  Come on.  At least have the decency to say you got played and now you want to play them back and stoop to their level, but please do not claim some moral high ground like court packing is any different than what the Republicans did.

The bolded is just silly - you are implying that there's a dangerous path (Dems exploiting what's allowed), and a non-dangerous path (Dems playing nice and being the 'better angels'). In reality, the latter is also a dangerous path because Republicans will continue their scorched earth, no-holds-barred, we-do-it-because-we-can policy... including gerrymandering and other shenanigans designed to exploit the electorate and prevent the majority of the country from actually being represented in and by their government. 

I definitely see where tit-for-tat takes us, but I also see premature 'forgiveness' on the part of the Dems as a losing strategy too. Republicans will not suddenly sit up straight and say, by golly you're right, we *should* work together for the good of the country!

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1975
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1465 on: November 09, 2020, 02:55:28 PM »
Someone needs to be the better party first, and it can be exploited, but the solution then is to stay infuriated enough as an electorate that you turn out in droves each election and never let the other party have power again.  Why is that not an option rather than simple taking advantage of the moment?  If people cared so much they would actually vote.  Maybe we need to call a spade a spade and say that most people just do not care?

Didn't you just undermine your whole argument here? People obviously do not care, or else Republicans would have been punished for stealing the SC seat, either this year or in 2016. But they weren't. So obviously Democrats have to play just as dirty to avoid being run over.

This is an academic discussion now though. Even if the Dems did win both Georgia run-offs (which I find extremely unlikely) there is zero chance that they'll be able to expand the SC with a 50-seat "majority", even if they actually wanted to (which they don't, and Biden has said so). Joe Manchin for one has already said he's against it.
I do not think I undermined it, just might not have explained my point clearly. 

What I mean is court packing is something valued by a minority.  If it happens there will be a price to pay at the ballot box and may be paid in as little as two years.  That is what I feel people miss.  Look, as I said, I typically prefer Republican policies but am a moderate so I switch parties, so I guess that makes me independent though in surveys I will identify as Republican.  Both parties are losing the middle of the road voter because they pull too far left or right.  Court packing would absolutely turn me off and cost that party my vote next time because I view it as childish.  Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have already showed that solid justices vote the law not party, so this is my point where I feel people who make this argument do not understand the job of a justice.  They are not party focused.  Roberts has been a swing vote how many times?  Look at the reality.  I am waiting for Coney Barrett to stuff one of Trump's election suits back at hime just as Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have done by delivering law based viewpoints.

I understand that since I am not in favor of radical moves in our laws I tend to care little about the cases that might hit that fringe, but the boogeyman of 6-3 conservative justices means nothing "liberal" stand a chance is just not accurate.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 39
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1466 on: November 09, 2020, 02:59:14 PM »
"do unto others" is meant to be used to drive better outcomes, not worse ones.  I think you know that otherwise how are you not being petty?

To your first point, just because it did not drive their ultimate votes does not mean their did not disapprove.  I am a Repbublican who is also a Christian and therefore am pro-life but I voted for Biden.  I did not approve of the nomination but understood it was legal.  I also do not feel Roe v Wade should be reversed as that would be harmful.  Saying that two things cannot be true when they can is obviously not accurate.

Yes, it's meant to. But it obviously doesn't work in this context. We now have decades of evidence that playing dirty works for Republicans, and that they are not punished for it, and that if the Democrats don't respond in kind that they will be railroaded. We're not just talking about SC justices here, but also all federal justices, and blatant obstructionism and refusing to compromise, and constantly filing frivolous lawsuits in order to abuse your position of power in the courts to strike down any laws that do slip through that you don't like, and gleefully generating hate propaganda and literal "fake news" about your opponents.

"The Dems should just be nice and take the high road and people will be drawn to it" sounds nice and idealistic, but it obviously doesn't work.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1975
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1467 on: November 09, 2020, 02:59:36 PM »
Also agree that if Dems don't fire back, McConnell keeps going in perpetuity, unchastened.  Game theory tells us that you HAVE to hit back when someone has violated has hit.  If you never retaliate, they learn they can always take advantage.  It's conclusive human psychology.
 Where does it end?  With a 20 person SCOTUS?  A 30 person SCOTUS?  Is this a terrible thing?  Why?  In fact, 30 justices sounds pretty good to me. Then we don't all have to freak out every time one of them gets a cough.  It *shouldn't* be a big deal to the entire country when one person retires or dies.  Also, we used to have the same number of SCOTUS justices as circuits in the federal court system and now we have falled behind by 4.  So we should *at least* add that many.

There's no reason 9 is a magic number.  It just happens to be the most recent number we've used.
It also would not a big deal if people understood that SC does not make law it enforces it.  This boogeyman of the SC influence on sounds legislation is just that.  If our electorate continues to not understand how they system works and gets all worked up then we are doomed.

Let's walk back what McConnell did.  Obama and the Dems could have pushed for a nomination vote and kept nominating justices if they got turned down.  Nothing that happened was not allowed per FIPurpose's note.  It is fully within congressional power to approve or disprove justices.  I think in fairness this last nomination should have waited, but it is exactly the point I am making.  Using every tool at your disposal because the constitution allows it even though fair play does not (look at the numbers that disapproved of this last appointment happening before the election.  Clearly many Republicans also agreed it was not party line at 70%+ disapproving).  Tit for tat and game theory are a dangerous game to play with government and just encourage the divisive government we have now.  You are right that Garland should have had a vote, and letting the Democrats off scot free because they did not push for one just cried in the corner, especially Obama, is not examining the record as it should be.  Using your own words about "dishonest and thieving" making the Democrats "dishonest and theiving" too makes it OK?  How foolish is that?  Or is it not dishonest because they have said they would like to do it?  You might be OK in your conscience making that point, but I would hope no one could with a straight face say it is not just as "thieving".  I am the king of the playground now to I move the free throw line because the constitution does not say I can't.  Come on.  At least have the decency to say you got played and now you want to play them back and stoop to their level, but please do not claim some moral high ground like court packing is any different than what the Republicans did.

The bolded is just silly - you are implying that there's a dangerous path (Dems exploiting what's allowed), and a non-dangerous path (Dems playing nice and being the 'better angels'). In reality, the latter is also a dangerous path because Republicans will continue their scorched earth, no-holds-barred, we-do-it-because-we-can policy... including gerrymandering and other shenanigans designed to exploit the electorate and prevent the majority of the country from actually being represented in and by their government. 

I definitely see where tit-for-tat takes us, but I also see premature 'forgiveness' on the part of the Dems as a losing strategy too. Republicans will not suddenly sit up straight and say, by golly you're right, we *should* work together for the good of the country!
I will agree with you there because the only way this changes is if it felt in the ballot box.  I was disappointed that more Republicans were not voted out of office.  I for the first time in my life voted straight ticket, not voting for a single Republican as I am so infuriated with where the party has gone.  The only way to truly change it is to get those people out of office.

So then I ask, how do we do that going down this other path?  If we just encourage our representatives to play dirty, are we not just making the system dirty in perpetuity?   I am not claiming I have the answer.  I just like politicians like Biden who understand what they are doing is a service for others.

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7831
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1468 on: November 09, 2020, 03:01:19 PM »
"do unto others" is meant to be used to drive better outcomes, not worse ones.  I think you know that otherwise how are you not being petty?

To your first point, just because it did not drive their ultimate votes does not mean their did not disapprove.  I am a Repbublican who is also a Christian and therefore am pro-life but I voted for Biden.  I did not approve of the nomination but understood it was legal.  I also do not feel Roe v Wade should be reversed as that would be harmful.  Saying that two things cannot be true when they can is obviously not accurate.

Yes, it's meant to. But it obviously doesn't work in this context. We now have decades of evidence that playing dirty works for Republicans, and that they are not punished for it, and that if the Democrats don't respond in kind that they will be railroaded. We're not just talking about SC justices here, but also all federal justices, and blatant obstructionism and refusing to compromise, and constantly filing frivolous lawsuits in order to abuse your position of power in the courts to strike down any laws that do slip through that you don't like, and gleefully generating hate propaganda and literal "fake news" about your opponents.

"The Dems should just be nice and take the high road and people will be drawn to it" sounds nice and idealistic, but it obviously doesn't work.

Not only that, but Republicans *knowing* that Democrats try to take the high road and play by the rules, and are never willing to be as shameless or dirty as the GOP is exactly what Republicans count on.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1975
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1469 on: November 09, 2020, 03:02:25 PM »
"do unto others" is meant to be used to drive better outcomes, not worse ones.  I think you know that otherwise how are you not being petty?

To your first point, just because it did not drive their ultimate votes does not mean their did not disapprove.  I am a Repbublican who is also a Christian and therefore am pro-life but I voted for Biden.  I did not approve of the nomination but understood it was legal.  I also do not feel Roe v Wade should be reversed as that would be harmful.  Saying that two things cannot be true when they can is obviously not accurate.

Yes, it's meant to. But it obviously doesn't work in this context. We now have decades of evidence that playing dirty works for Republicans, and that they are not punished for it, and that if the Democrats don't respond in kind that they will be railroaded. We're not just talking about SC justices here, but also all federal justices, and blatant obstructionism and refusing to compromise, and constantly filing frivolous lawsuits in order to abuse your position of power in the courts to strike down any laws that do slip through that you don't like, and gleefully generating hate propaganda and literal "fake news" about your opponents.

"The Dems should just be nice and take the high road and people will be drawn to it" sounds nice and idealistic, but it obviously doesn't work.
As noted in my last response, I reluctantly agree.

Do you want to see it not stay dirty long term as I do?  If so, do you have a proposal for how it changes?  Maybe it is nothing more than people getting fed up with dirty and voting that way.  And perhaps what these last two elections have shown is that sadly more of the American electorate prefers dirty politics.  If that is the case then I will have a very sad and disappointed life remaining as I watch our politics go further and further into the gutter.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2073
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1470 on: November 09, 2020, 03:02:29 PM »
Also agree that if Dems don't fire back, McConnell keeps going in perpetuity, unchastened.  Game theory tells us that you HAVE to hit back when someone has violated has hit.  If you never retaliate, they learn they can always take advantage.  It's conclusive human psychology.
 Where does it end?  With a 20 person SCOTUS?  A 30 person SCOTUS?  Is this a terrible thing?  Why?  In fact, 30 justices sounds pretty good to me. Then we don't all have to freak out every time one of them gets a cough.  It *shouldn't* be a big deal to the entire country when one person retires or dies.  Also, we used to have the same number of SCOTUS justices as circuits in the federal court system and now we have falled behind by 4.  So we should *at least* add that many.

There's no reason 9 is a magic number.  It just happens to be the most recent number we've used.

Exactly. It was expanded and shrunk a few times during the ~1860s. It didn't balloon to 30 then and it won't balloon to 30 now. The US didn't collapse under the weight of too many Justices.
Yes an the politics of the day were still driven by politicians who did it for the good of the country and as a service rather than making a job out of it and pandering.  My opinion is the two eras are not comparable and this will be dangerous as it just continues the pettiness.  Someone needs to be the better party first, and it can be exploited, but the solution then is to stay infuriated enough as an electorate that you turn out in droves each election and never let the other party have power again.  Why is that not an option rather than simple taking advantage of the moment?  If people cared so much they would actually vote.  Maybe we need to call a spade a spade and say that most people just do not care?

Lol no. The courts were expanded in the 1860's because Lincoln wanted to limit the South's power who had managed to grab 7 out of the nine seats. After the Dred Scott decision, that gave Lincoln the political power to basically remove half the South's federal courts and move them to the North thereby appointing all of his own judges.

Consider that the only reason we have 2 Dakotas is because the Republicans at the time wanted more Senators. Basically everything is about power.

The thing to consider here is whether the people in power actually represent the desires of their constituents. The GOP are fundamentally a minority party at this point. They have won the popular vote once in 30 years yet now control more than half the court. When the SC and Senate are so far out of line with the will of the people, or course it's going to cause civil unrest. The GOP are not creating the utopia that they think they are. They are building up civil unrest thinking that using the political system to leverage their minority power over the people will be accepted. The way to burst this bubble (lower the temperature as the President-elect says), is by bringing the SC into alignment with the people.

This is also caused by the general ruin that the Senate has become where 10% of the country permanently controls Congress. But that is a much more difficult problem to solve.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2020, 03:08:21 PM by FIPurpose »

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1975
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1471 on: November 09, 2020, 03:04:50 PM »
"do unto others" is meant to be used to drive better outcomes, not worse ones.  I think you know that otherwise how are you not being petty?

To your first point, just because it did not drive their ultimate votes does not mean their did not disapprove.  I am a Repbublican who is also a Christian and therefore am pro-life but I voted for Biden.  I did not approve of the nomination but understood it was legal.  I also do not feel Roe v Wade should be reversed as that would be harmful.  Saying that two things cannot be true when they can is obviously not accurate.

Yes, it's meant to. But it obviously doesn't work in this context. We now have decades of evidence that playing dirty works for Republicans, and that they are not punished for it, and that if the Democrats don't respond in kind that they will be railroaded. We're not just talking about SC justices here, but also all federal justices, and blatant obstructionism and refusing to compromise, and constantly filing frivolous lawsuits in order to abuse your position of power in the courts to strike down any laws that do slip through that you don't like, and gleefully generating hate propaganda and literal "fake news" about your opponents.

"The Dems should just be nice and take the high road and people will be drawn to it" sounds nice and idealistic, but it obviously doesn't work.

Not only that, but Republicans *knowing* that Democrats try to take the high road and play by the rules, and are never willing to be as shameless or dirty as the GOP is exactly what Republicans count on.
Kris, I reluctantly agree.  It is exactly why the Republican party has lost my vote, until that changes, but perhaps I am in the minority.  Would love to have it different though.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 39
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1472 on: November 09, 2020, 03:08:48 PM »
"do unto others" is meant to be used to drive better outcomes, not worse ones.  I think you know that otherwise how are you not being petty?

To your first point, just because it did not drive their ultimate votes does not mean their did not disapprove.  I am a Repbublican who is also a Christian and therefore am pro-life but I voted for Biden.  I did not approve of the nomination but understood it was legal.  I also do not feel Roe v Wade should be reversed as that would be harmful.  Saying that two things cannot be true when they can is obviously not accurate.

Yes, it's meant to. But it obviously doesn't work in this context. We now have decades of evidence that playing dirty works for Republicans, and that they are not punished for it, and that if the Democrats don't respond in kind that they will be railroaded. We're not just talking about SC justices here, but also all federal justices, and blatant obstructionism and refusing to compromise, and constantly filing frivolous lawsuits in order to abuse your position of power in the courts to strike down any laws that do slip through that you don't like, and gleefully generating hate propaganda and literal "fake news" about your opponents.

"The Dems should just be nice and take the high road and people will be drawn to it" sounds nice and idealistic, but it obviously doesn't work.
As noted in my last response, I reluctantly agree.

Do you want to see it not stay dirty long term as I do?  If so, do you have a proposal for how it changes?  Maybe it is nothing more than people getting fed up with dirty and voting that way.  And perhaps what these last two elections have shown is that sadly more of the American electorate prefers dirty politics.  If that is the case then I will have a very sad and disappointed life remaining as I watch our politics go further and further into the gutter.

Oh and gerrymandering, somehow I forgot that in my list. Which is relevant to my answer to your question, because I think the only was to de-escalate politics is to fix gerrymandering, making districts more competitive again, which forces people to actually compete in the General instead of only caring about appealing to the extreme party loyalists in the Primary.

Citizen-led nonpartisan distracting commissions. And ideally ranked-choice voting thrown in to boot. And in a perfect world overturning Citizen's United and abolishing Super PACs to get the insane amounts of money out of elections. But reforming how we vote is a necessary first step to fixing the way politics works.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1975
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1473 on: November 09, 2020, 03:09:14 PM »
Also agree that if Dems don't fire back, McConnell keeps going in perpetuity, unchastened.  Game theory tells us that you HAVE to hit back when someone has violated has hit.  If you never retaliate, they learn they can always take advantage.  It's conclusive human psychology.
 Where does it end?  With a 20 person SCOTUS?  A 30 person SCOTUS?  Is this a terrible thing?  Why?  In fact, 30 justices sounds pretty good to me. Then we don't all have to freak out every time one of them gets a cough.  It *shouldn't* be a big deal to the entire country when one person retires or dies.  Also, we used to have the same number of SCOTUS justices as circuits in the federal court system and now we have falled behind by 4.  So we should *at least* add that many.

There's no reason 9 is a magic number.  It just happens to be the most recent number we've used.

Exactly. It was expanded and shrunk a few times during the ~1860s. It didn't balloon to 30 then and it won't balloon to 30 now. The US didn't collapse under the weight of too many Justices.
Yes an the politics of the day were still driven by politicians who did it for the good of the country and as a service rather than making a job out of it and pandering.  My opinion is the two eras are not comparable and this will be dangerous as it just continues the pettiness.  Someone needs to be the better party first, and it can be exploited, but the solution then is to stay infuriated enough as an electorate that you turn out in droves each election and never let the other party have power again.  Why is that not an option rather than simple taking advantage of the moment?  If people cared so much they would actually vote.  Maybe we need to call a spade a spade and say that most people just do not care?

The thing to consider here is whether the people in power actually represent the desires of their constituents. The GOP are fundamentally a minority party at this point. They have won the popular vote once in 30 years yet now control more than half the court. When the SC and Senate are so far out of line with the will of the people, or course it's going to cause civil unrest. The GOP are not creating the utopia that they think they are. They are building up civil unrest thinking that using the political system to leverage their minority power over the people will be accepted. The way to burst this bubble (lower the temperature as the President-elect says), is by bringing the SC into alignment with the people.

The majority of this is very true and will get no push back from me.  Trying to drag more and more voters out of a smaller and smaller segment of the population has caused horrendous behavior.  I am just not sure the last sentence is the answer you think it will be.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7806
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1474 on: November 09, 2020, 03:10:48 PM »
Also agree that if Dems don't fire back, McConnell keeps going in perpetuity, unchastened.  Game theory tells us that you HAVE to hit back when someone has violated has hit.  If you never retaliate, they learn they can always take advantage.  It's conclusive human psychology.
 Where does it end?  With a 20 person SCOTUS?  A 30 person SCOTUS?  Is this a terrible thing?  Why?  In fact, 30 justices sounds pretty good to me. Then we don't all have to freak out every time one of them gets a cough.  It *shouldn't* be a big deal to the entire country when one person retires or dies.  Also, we used to have the same number of SCOTUS justices as circuits in the federal court system and now we have falled behind by 4.  So we should *at least* add that many.

There's no reason 9 is a magic number.  It just happens to be the most recent number we've used.

Exactly. It was expanded and shrunk a few times during the ~1860s. It didn't balloon to 30 then and it won't balloon to 30 now. The US didn't collapse under the weight of too many Justices.
Yes an the politics of the day were still driven by politicians who did it for the good of the country and as a service rather than making a job out of it and pandering.  My opinion is the two eras are not comparable and this will be dangerous as it just continues the pettiness.  Someone needs to be the better party first, and it can be exploited, but the solution then is to stay infuriated enough as an electorate that you turn out in droves each election and never let the other party have power again.  Why is that not an option rather than simple taking advantage of the moment?  If people cared so much they would actually vote.  Maybe we need to call a spade a spade and say that most people just do not care?

Lol no. The courts were expanded in the 1860's because Lincoln wanted to limit the South's power who had managed to grab 7 out of the nine seats. After the Dred Scott decision, that gave Lincoln the political power to basically remove half the South's federal courts and move them to the North thereby appointing all of his own judges.

And Lincoln's successor, Johnson, shrunk the Court to limit the civil rights of newly-freed slaves.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1975
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ohio
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1475 on: November 09, 2020, 03:10:53 PM »
"do unto others" is meant to be used to drive better outcomes, not worse ones.  I think you know that otherwise how are you not being petty?

To your first point, just because it did not drive their ultimate votes does not mean their did not disapprove.  I am a Repbublican who is also a Christian and therefore am pro-life but I voted for Biden.  I did not approve of the nomination but understood it was legal.  I also do not feel Roe v Wade should be reversed as that would be harmful.  Saying that two things cannot be true when they can is obviously not accurate.

Yes, it's meant to. But it obviously doesn't work in this context. We now have decades of evidence that playing dirty works for Republicans, and that they are not punished for it, and that if the Democrats don't respond in kind that they will be railroaded. We're not just talking about SC justices here, but also all federal justices, and blatant obstructionism and refusing to compromise, and constantly filing frivolous lawsuits in order to abuse your position of power in the courts to strike down any laws that do slip through that you don't like, and gleefully generating hate propaganda and literal "fake news" about your opponents.

"The Dems should just be nice and take the high road and people will be drawn to it" sounds nice and idealistic, but it obviously doesn't work.
As noted in my last response, I reluctantly agree.

Do you want to see it not stay dirty long term as I do?  If so, do you have a proposal for how it changes?  Maybe it is nothing more than people getting fed up with dirty and voting that way.  And perhaps what these last two elections have shown is that sadly more of the American electorate prefers dirty politics.  If that is the case then I will have a very sad and disappointed life remaining as I watch our politics go further and further into the gutter.

Oh and gerrymandering, somehow I forgot that in my list. Which is relevant to my answer to your question, because I think the only was to de-escalate politics is to fix gerrymandering, making districts more competitive again, which forces people to actually compete in the General instead of only caring about appealing to the extreme party loyalists in the Primary.

Citizen-led nonpartisan distracting commissions. And ideally ranked-choice voting thrown in to boot. And in a perfect world overturning Citizen's United and abolishing Super PACs to get the insane amounts of money out of elections. But reforming how we vote is a necessary first step to fixing the way politics works.
Excellent response.  I see the same problems and agree with your points.  At least there are two of us.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2073
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1476 on: November 09, 2020, 03:14:42 PM »
"do unto others" is meant to be used to drive better outcomes, not worse ones.  I think you know that otherwise how are you not being petty?

To your first point, just because it did not drive their ultimate votes does not mean their did not disapprove.  I am a Repbublican who is also a Christian and therefore am pro-life but I voted for Biden.  I did not approve of the nomination but understood it was legal.  I also do not feel Roe v Wade should be reversed as that would be harmful.  Saying that two things cannot be true when they can is obviously not accurate.

Yes, it's meant to. But it obviously doesn't work in this context. We now have decades of evidence that playing dirty works for Republicans, and that they are not punished for it, and that if the Democrats don't respond in kind that they will be railroaded. We're not just talking about SC justices here, but also all federal justices, and blatant obstructionism and refusing to compromise, and constantly filing frivolous lawsuits in order to abuse your position of power in the courts to strike down any laws that do slip through that you don't like, and gleefully generating hate propaganda and literal "fake news" about your opponents.

"The Dems should just be nice and take the high road and people will be drawn to it" sounds nice and idealistic, but it obviously doesn't work.
As noted in my last response, I reluctantly agree.

Do you want to see it not stay dirty long term as I do?  If so, do you have a proposal for how it changes?  Maybe it is nothing more than people getting fed up with dirty and voting that way.  And perhaps what these last two elections have shown is that sadly more of the American electorate prefers dirty politics.  If that is the case then I will have a very sad and disappointed life remaining as I watch our politics go further and further into the gutter.

Oh and gerrymandering, somehow I forgot that in my list. Which is relevant to my answer to your question, because I think the only was to de-escalate politics is to fix gerrymandering, making districts more competitive again, which forces people to actually compete in the General instead of only caring about appealing to the extreme party loyalists in the Primary.

Citizen-led nonpartisan distracting commissions. And ideally ranked-choice voting thrown in to boot. And in a perfect world overturning Citizen's United and abolishing Super PACs to get the insane amounts of money out of elections. But reforming how we vote is a necessary first step to fixing the way politics works.

There is currently a push to make all citizen-led nonpartisan district commissions declared unconstitutional by the SC, and there have been some writings from Alito and others that they are willing to rule that way to invalidate all these commissions by saying that state legislatures are not allowed to delegate their authority to draw the district maps.

Here's a great article on the history of the SC and multiple proposed solutions: https://harvardlpr.com/2019/05/06/the-supreme-court-has-been-expanded-many-times-before-here-are-four-ways-to-do-it-today/

Freedom2016

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1477 on: November 09, 2020, 03:20:47 PM »
"do unto others" is meant to be used to drive better outcomes, not worse ones.  I think you know that otherwise how are you not being petty?

To your first point, just because it did not drive their ultimate votes does not mean their did not disapprove.  I am a Repbublican who is also a Christian and therefore am pro-life but I voted for Biden.  I did not approve of the nomination but understood it was legal.  I also do not feel Roe v Wade should be reversed as that would be harmful.  Saying that two things cannot be true when they can is obviously not accurate.

Yes, it's meant to. But it obviously doesn't work in this context. We now have decades of evidence that playing dirty works for Republicans, and that they are not punished for it, and that if the Democrats don't respond in kind that they will be railroaded. We're not just talking about SC justices here, but also all federal justices, and blatant obstructionism and refusing to compromise, and constantly filing frivolous lawsuits in order to abuse your position of power in the courts to strike down any laws that do slip through that you don't like, and gleefully generating hate propaganda and literal "fake news" about your opponents.

"The Dems should just be nice and take the high road and people will be drawn to it" sounds nice and idealistic, but it obviously doesn't work.

Not only that, but Republicans *knowing* that Democrats try to take the high road and play by the rules, and are never willing to be as shameless or dirty as the GOP is exactly what Republicans count on.
Kris, I reluctantly agree.  It is exactly why the Republican party has lost my vote, until that changes, but perhaps I am in the minority.  Would love to have it different though.

In international conflict, parties will/may continue down a destructive path until a "hurting stalemate" is reached: where both sides realize they will be fundamentally/mortally damaged if they keep going. As long as one party continues to see advantage in pressing their offensive, there is no hurting stalemate and the conflict will continue.

So maybe the brainstorm needs to be: what would create a hurting stalemate?

BicycleB

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5652
  • Location: US Midwest - Where Jokes Are Tricky These Days
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1478 on: November 09, 2020, 04:19:19 PM »
I hesitate to focus on a hurting stalemate, because that predisposes us to overlook the practical power of the high road.

I won't claim that the high road is powerful enough to dominate current events. Of course all the many distressing points made in the last x posts are correct. But there are a couple of practical reasons for Democrats to consider sticking to the high road anyway, meaning not to pack the Court if they get the chance.

I as a voter do track the moral consistency of parties. Mistakes happen often enough that I can't find any perfect party, but if Dems retaliate by Court packing, I feel they will have lost a slice of moral authority that they can retain by not Court packing. Some other voters pay attention too. The argument that Rs were inherently conflicting with their own stated principles by inducting Barrett now was quite clear. Even if it wasn't strong enough to switch a lot of votes, it counts for the future when new voters choose party allegiances and old voters occasionally switch or stop voting. Right now Dems are the aggrieved in this matter - they won't get tit for tat from Rs, but they may increase their voter share over time by maintaining that status as part of their ongoing identity. It gives them a chance to build a moral profile as a basis for future loyalty (more accurately, it prevents them from losing such loyalty). Why do a big brand damager when the likely outcome is just a continuing arms race?

Then there's the Limited Time problem. Even if they (we) had more than 50 Senators, court packing would be a big issue sucking up time and energy. No way even a Senate-controlling Democratic party can accomplish the bulk of its platform in one term. Since Court packing brings problems not just benefits, I think the balance of value is better on other issues, such as Covid19, climate progress, restoring international respect including functional alliances, economic stabilization, and so on. Biden is wise to have sidestepped Court packing.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2020, 04:22:03 PM by BicycleB »

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5267
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1479 on: November 09, 2020, 06:29:39 PM »
Oh boy.

Trump Campaign Files Federal Lawsuit Seeking to Block Pennsylvania from Certifying Election Results

Quote
Before the lawsuit landed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Trump and his loyalists invoked the specter of mass voter fraud as a reason to contest the contest. Variations of the word “fraud” appear in the lawsuit 33 times, mostly in the context of rare prosecutions related to other elections. The only suspected instances of voter fraud cited in the complaint occurred in two Keystone State counties that voted for Trump: Fayette, where Trump is winning by a 34-point margin, and Luzerne, where his lead is 14 points.[/url]

So many Very Stable Geniuses.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7806
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1480 on: November 09, 2020, 09:08:06 PM »
Oh boy.

Trump Campaign Files Federal Lawsuit Seeking to Block Pennsylvania from Certifying Election Results

Quote
Before the lawsuit landed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Trump and his loyalists invoked the specter of mass voter fraud as a reason to contest the contest. Variations of the word “fraud” appear in the lawsuit 33 times, mostly in the context of rare prosecutions related to other elections. The only suspected instances of voter fraud cited in the complaint occurred in two Keystone State counties that voted for Trump: Fayette, where Trump is winning by a 34-point margin, and Luzerne, where his lead is 14 points.

So many Very Stable Geniuses.

It'll get tossed but they're trying everything they can.

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1325925646028181505

Quote from: natesilver
It's hard to tell whether GOP leaders are being strategic and cynical (e.g. hoping to keep their base excited) when indulging claims of election-rigging, or are just wholly disconnected from reality. But in some ways I wonder if it's even possible to distinguish between the two.

We're still on a knife's edge.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2020, 09:09:54 PM by bacchi »


Psychstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1705
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1482 on: November 09, 2020, 09:39:53 PM »
Also agree that if Dems don't fire back, McConnell keeps going in perpetuity, unchastened.  Game theory tells us that you HAVE to hit back when someone has violated has hit.  If you never retaliate, they learn they can always take advantage.  It's conclusive human psychology.
 Where does it end?  With a 20 person SCOTUS?  A 30 person SCOTUS?  Is this a terrible thing?  Why?  In fact, 30 justices sounds pretty good to me. Then we don't all have to freak out every time one of them gets a cough.  It *shouldn't* be a big deal to the entire country when one person retires or dies.  Also, we used to have the same number of SCOTUS justices as circuits in the federal court system and now we have falled behind by 4.  So we should *at least* add that many.

There's no reason 9 is a magic number.  It just happens to be the most recent number we've used.

Exactly. It was expanded and shrunk a few times during the ~1860s. It didn't balloon to 30 then and it won't balloon to 30 now. The US didn't collapse under the weight of too many Justices.
Yes an the politics of the day were still driven by politicians who did it for the good of the country and as a service rather than making a job out of it and pandering.  My opinion is the two eras are not comparable and this will be dangerous as it just continues the pettiness.  Someone needs to be the better party first, and it can be exploited, but the solution then is to stay infuriated enough as an electorate that you turn out in droves each election and never let the other party have power again.  Why is that not an option rather than simple taking advantage of the moment?  If people cared so much they would actually vote.  Maybe we need to call a spade a spade and say that most people just do not care?

Lol no. The courts were expanded in the 1860's because Lincoln wanted to limit the South's power who had managed to grab 7 out of the nine seats. After the Dred Scott decision, that gave Lincoln the political power to basically remove half the South's federal courts and move them to the North thereby appointing all of his own judges.

And Lincoln's successor, Johnson, shrunk the Court to limit the civil rights of newly-freed slaves.

Another great example since the conversation drifted into Gerrymandering. The term is named after Elbridge Gerry, the Founding Father, Governor, and Vice President who invented it in 1810.


frugalnacho

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5060
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1484 on: November 09, 2020, 11:08:07 PM »
How pissed would y'all be if multiple states did get overturned and trump stole the election? I don't know that I'd be running to the streets to shoot people, but I'd be mighty pissed.

It sounds unlikely, but I've been saying that ever since he announced he was running in 2016 and here we are.  Just another twist the twilight zone episode that america has become.

rab-bit

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 272
  • Location: Western PA
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1485 on: November 10, 2020, 01:48:06 AM »
This is scary as shit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-republicans-election-challenges/2020/11/09/49e2c238-22c4-11eb-952e-0c475972cfc0_story.html

Real Clear Politics has taken PA out of Biden’s column.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2020/president/

I did some investigating and it appears that this is another false claim by the election-result-deniers. As far as I can tell Real Clear Politics did not reverse their call for PA, they never called it in the first place (though I'm not sure why).

https://mobile.twitter.com/TomBevanRCP/status/1325973800891150336
« Last Edit: November 10, 2020, 02:01:06 AM by rab-bit »

talltexan

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5350
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1486 on: November 10, 2020, 06:37:53 AM »
Very comforting reassurances from Ben Wittes on Twitter. The key steps to certify the election will happen. The Trump legal challenges are clumsy and will not strike at the pivotal votes anyway. Biden will take office, and--like his last four predecessors--many people will find a justification to believe he is not a legitimate President. But he will be President when we all go to sleep on 1/20/21.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 18174
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1487 on: November 10, 2020, 07:47:21 AM »
Very comforting reassurances from Ben Wittes on Twitter. The key steps to certify the election will happen. The Trump legal challenges are clumsy and will not strike at the pivotal votes anyway. Biden will take office, and--like his last four predecessors--many people will find a justification to believe he is not a legitimate President. But he will be President when we all go to sleep on 1/20/21.

I've read several accounts from 'sources within the WH' that these legal filings are essentially to appease Trump and aren't really designed to be won (how can they? they have no legal merit...).  The idea seems to be "do as he says, even though we all know it won't work" and hope his attention eventually drifts elsewhere.

talltexan

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5350
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1488 on: November 10, 2020, 08:22:50 AM »
A lot of people are missing how unusual Biden is for a Democrat:

JFK, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter were not yet fifty years old when they were elected. FDR was fifty, Jimmy Carter was fifty-two, and Woodrow Wilson fifty-six.

The older Presidents--Eisenhower, Reagan, and of course Trump--were Republicans.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 39
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1489 on: November 10, 2020, 08:27:11 AM »
A lot of people are missing how unusual Biden is for a Democrat:

JFK, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter were not yet fifty years old when they were elected. FDR was fifty, Jimmy Carter was fifty-two, and Woodrow Wilson fifty-six.

The older Presidents--Eisenhower, Reagan, and of course Trump--were Republicans.

My personal opinion about this type of analysis is that there are simply too few samples to be able to make any kind of conclusion.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7690
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1490 on: November 10, 2020, 08:34:55 AM »
A lot of people are missing how unusual Biden is for a Democrat:

JFK, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter were not yet fifty years old when they were elected. FDR was fifty, Jimmy Carter was fifty-two, and Woodrow Wilson fifty-six.

The older Presidents--Eisenhower, Reagan, and of course Trump--were Republicans.

Most recent presidents are all from the same generation, if not actually the same age. 

Bush - 74
Clinton - 74
Trump - 74
Biden - 77

Obama is the outlier, as he's only 59 years old now.

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5267
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1491 on: November 10, 2020, 08:44:15 AM »
I'm sure we'll see more of this bullshit in states with GOP legislatures. A state rep in Wisconsin is already pushing for the state's electors to throw out the popular vote and choose Trump.

Salon: Donald Trump Jr. is pushing an authoritarian idea to steal the election

Quote
In response to this dismal situation for the president, far-right radio host Mark R. Levin responded with a tweet suggesting a plan to overturn the results. Mother Jones' Tim Murphy denounced the idea as an authoritarian idea for trying to steal the election if Biden is declared the winner, and Murphy noted that Donald Trump, Jr. has signed off on Levin's idea.

The contents of Levin's tweet, which I'm sure has been spread far and wide on Parler and other right-wing bullshit sites:

Quote
REMINDER TO THE REPUBLICAN STATE LEGISLATURES, YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY OVER THE CHOOSING OF ELECTORS, NOT ANY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, SECRETARY OF STATE, GOVERNOR, OR EVEN COURT. YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY -- ARTICLE II OF THE FED CONSTITUTION. SO, GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY

What exactly is the legal definition of sedition?

turketron

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 814
  • Age: 39
  • Location: WI
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1492 on: November 10, 2020, 09:06:30 AM »
the good news is that at least here in WI, the state legislature doesn't have any say in the process:

Quote
After certification by the Chair of the WEC (Wisconsin Election Commission), the official results are provided to the Governor’s Office, which prepares a “certificate of ascertainment” for president, vice president and presidential electors for the election. The certificate lists each presidential and vice-presidential candidate, their electors, and the total number of votes each received. This certificate is signed by the Governor who also affixes the Great Seal of the State of Wisconsin to the certificate. It is the sent to the U.S. General Services Administrator. This is done on or before the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December, which is December 14 this year. In Wisconsin, the state legislature plays no role in certifying or deciding which slate of electors vote in the Electoral College.

https://waow.com/2020/11/02/wisconsin-election-results-likely-wont-be-available-until-wednesday/

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7806
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1493 on: November 10, 2020, 09:09:11 AM »
Any state legislature that did this would be in a purple state. Cue: Recalls and riots.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2073
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1494 on: November 10, 2020, 09:10:28 AM »
That and these things are written as law. In order to overturn them, they'd have to pass new legislation. Wisconsin would have to overcome the Governor's veto, which just isn't happening.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 39
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1495 on: November 10, 2020, 09:25:03 AM »
Additionally, while legislatures could technically choose to move away from the popular vote for the next election, they cannot change how this election works after election day. Any attempt to do so would be immediately challenged and then thrown out in court.

I propose that it's time to start ignoring the Trumper conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen.

Edit: I'll also quote the relevant portions of federal law:

Quote from: TheConstitutionArticleIISection1 link=https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Quote from: USCodeTitle3Section1 link=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/1
The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November [election day], in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2020, 10:22:12 AM by sherr »

sui generis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3150
  • she/her
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1496 on: November 10, 2020, 09:53:07 AM »
the good news is that at least here in WI, the state legislature doesn't have any say in the process:

(snip).
This isn't quite true, as the U.S. Constitution does give the decision to state legislatures on how to select electors.  You can see more of this described in the article sherr posted just above.  They choose how it is done, but that doesn't mean they should be able to come in post hoc and revise the method they had previously decided on (in WI as in most states, they've provided for a process in which they do not have a role).  That would be the revolutionary part and, while I am also 99% skeptical of it happening, the furor over the high court's recent concurrences citing Bush v. Gore indicating that a state legislature's power in this arena cannot be reviewed by its own state supreme court do create some red flags.  Basically at least 4 of the current SCOTUS seem to be indicating that a state legislature's actions with respect to the manner of selecting electors they've set out in their own state laws is not settled by the state supreme court, but can be reviewed by SCOTUS and we all know which way they would rule.

The reason this is not so risky as we all feared when these came down the week before the election is that it would take multiple state legislatures willing to buck their state popular vote, and then SCOTUS overruling the decision by each state supreme court (presumably) contravening those actions.  The chances that several state legislatures would be willing to risk this seems extremely unlikely. 

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1983
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1497 on: November 10, 2020, 09:55:30 AM »
The Supreme Court won't invalidate the voters' choices, because if they did so then there would be a literal shooting civil war rather than just people sharing mean memes. Period.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 39
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1498 on: November 10, 2020, 10:03:40 AM »
That would be the revolutionary part and, while I am also 99% skeptical of it happening, the furor over the high court's recent concurrences citing Bush v. Gore indicating that a state legislature's power in this arena cannot be reviewed by its own state supreme court do create some red flags.  Basically at least 4 of the current SCOTUS seem to be indicating that a state legislature's actions with respect to the manner of selecting electors they've set out in their own state laws is not settled by the state supreme court, but can be reviewed by SCOTUS and we all know which way they would rule.

Yes but they said that about cases brought before election day. And in this case the laws in question are US federal laws, so it's completely irrelevant whether the state supreme court or US supreme court is the ultimate decider. We do know which way they would rule, and they would laugh the traitorous election-stealers out of court.

The Supreme Court won't invalidate the voters' choices, because if they did so then there would be a literal shooting civil war rather than just people sharing mean memes. Period.

Well yes, but also because it wouldn't be even remotely legal and they all know that they don't have even the tiniest splinter of a wooden peg-leg to stand on.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2020, 10:13:41 AM by sherr »

sui generis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3150
  • she/her
Re: Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?
« Reply #1499 on: November 10, 2020, 10:13:49 AM »
That would be the revolutionary part and, while I am also 99% skeptical of it happening, the furor over the high court's recent concurrences citing Bush v. Gore indicating that a state legislature's power in this arena cannot be reviewed by its own state supreme court do create some red flags.  Basically at least 4 of the current SCOTUS seem to be indicating that a state legislature's actions with respect to the manner of selecting electors they've set out in their own state laws is not settled by the state supreme court, but can be reviewed by SCOTUS and we all know which way they would rule.

Yes but they said that about cases brought before election day. And in this case the laws in question are US federal laws, so it's completely irrelevant whether the state supreme court or US supreme court is the ultimate decider. We do know which way they would rule, and they would laugh the election-stealers out of court.

Which federal laws are you talking about that are "the laws in question" in this case?

I am not sure either about the "before election day" part.  The justices indicated that they might decide post hoc to reconsider the PA ruling allowing ballots to be counted if mailed by election day and received with the 6 day "buffer" afterward.