Trump outrage of the day

[John Galt incarnate!]

Another attempt to pack the Supreme Court would be exceedingly controversial. Much worse, if successful it would vitiate the principle of stare decisis  that provides stability, predictability, and reliance on the great body of  fundamental  law   that constitutes  America's  jurisprudential foundation.


"An interpretation [of the fundamental law] to be changed with each change of administration" would eliminate  the rule of law.


In 1937 the Senate Judiciary Committee issued its Adverse Report that resoundingly rejected FDR's Judicial Reorganization Plan also known as his "Court-packing scheme."

This is a bit confusing of an argument to hear from you.  You've repeatedly argued that the political affiliation of conservative Supreme Court justices is unimportant because they'll all preside over cases fairly according to various legal concepts.

It would seem to follow that legally adding liberal leaning Supreme Court justices should result in no additional unfairness.  Since stare decisis exists for expanding (and shrinking) the size of the court there's no valid argument against based upon that.  Your main objection then appears rooted in the assumption that more liberal justices will not be as fair in their judgements as the conservative ones you have been assuring us will be.

Surely, you see how this argument (coming as it does from a self-professed staunch conservative) is rather lacking?

I give the greatest  weight to  the constitutional erudition  and considered opinions of the senators who drafted the Adverse Report. I cannot be persuaded that its conclusions are wrong or cautioning overstated.


The threat  to pack the Court is fueled by a  zealous  desire for a change on the high bench that will result in the overturn of precedents such as Citizen's United.

This threat is  antithetical to constitutional constancy for the Constitution is only as enduring as the fixity of its guarantees, the durability of its precedents.

[LennStar]

Trump is cracking and starting to lament his choices.

I may never have to come back here again if I don't get Iowa. I'll never be back.

"By the way, nice trucks," he said to no one in particular on yet another airport tarmac. "You think I could hop into one of them and drive it away?"
"I'd love to just drive the hell out of here. Just get the hell out of this," he went on. "I had such a good life. My life was great."

His "getting your husbands back to work" comments are tone deaf, too, considering his suburban audience and how women are more impacted by covid than men.

But women should not be working at all, it's their fault if they do it!

[Just Joe]

Not votes from me for the GOP until they move away from bully tactics. That seems to be how they try to make change lately.

[GuitarStv]

Another attempt to pack the Supreme Court would be exceedingly controversial. Much worse, if successful it would vitiate the principle of stare decisis  that provides stability, predictability, and reliance on the great body of  fundamental  law   that constitutes  America's  jurisprudential foundation.


"An interpretation [of the fundamental law] to be changed with each change of administration" would eliminate  the rule of law.


In 1937 the Senate Judiciary Committee issued its Adverse Report that resoundingly rejected FDR's Judicial Reorganization Plan also known as his "Court-packing scheme."

This is a bit confusing of an argument to hear from you.  You've repeatedly argued that the political affiliation of conservative Supreme Court justices is unimportant because they'll all preside over cases fairly according to various legal concepts.

It would seem to follow that legally adding liberal leaning Supreme Court justices should result in no additional unfairness.  Since stare decisis exists for expanding (and shrinking) the size of the court there's no valid argument against based upon that.  Your main objection then appears rooted in the assumption that more liberal justices will not be as fair in their judgements as the conservative ones you have been assuring us will be.

Surely, you see how this argument (coming as it does from a self-professed staunch conservative) is rather lacking?

I give the greatest  weight to  the constitutional erudition  and considered opinions of the senators who drafted the Adverse Report. I cannot be persuaded that its conclusions are wrong or cautioning overstated.


The threat  to pack the Court is fueled by a  zealous  desire for a change on the high bench that will result in the overturn of precedents such as Citizen's United.

This threat is  antithetical to constitutional constancy for the Constitution is only as enduring as the fixity of its guarantees, the durability of its precedents.

Seems rather disingenuous.

The constitution isn't at question here in any way.  The constitution does not elaborate the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court or the organization of the Judicial Branch as a whole.  As in the past, changing the number of Supreme Court justices would therefore not change 'constitutional constancy'.  This is an illogical argument.

You dismissed out of hand many concerns that the current packing of the court with conservative justices would impact abortion rights predominantly by arguing that conservative justices would use stare decisis to preserve decisions previously made.  Why do you believe that the same would not be used by liberal leaning judges to protect the Citizens United decision that you are so attached to?  Fundamentally, your argument remains unchanged - that liberal judges are less trustworthy than conservative ones.  This is evidence of strong personal bias.

[talltexan]

Trump is cracking and starting to lament his choices.

I may never have to come back here again if I don't get Iowa. I'll never be back.

"By the way, nice trucks," he said to no one in particular on yet another airport tarmac. "You think I could hop into one of them and drive it away?"
"I'd love to just drive the hell out of here. Just get the hell out of this," he went on. "I had such a good life. My life was great."

His "getting your husbands back to work" comments are tone deaf, too, considering his suburban audience and how women are more impacted by covid than men.

Agreed. This downturn has been very hard on women, who are more likely to work in hospitality and service industries, and who often are the marginal earner in the household because of parenting responsibilities. Promising to "put husbands back to work" won't help those women.

[John Galt incarnate!]

I hope, should the election prove to be a landslide, that the NYPost uses the opportunity to run a front page headline of "You're Fired!" They revel in the snark, and it is more or less a hometown paper for Trump.

Ha ha!

"You're Fired" would be a  perfect fit.

[Roadrunner53]

Hahaha, YOU'RE FIRED!

But the NY Post? They endorsed him!

Would be good if all the newspapers in the country used the same line on the front page!

[wenchsenior]

As someone who trained as a scientist and is married to a scientist, I simply cannot overstate how bad a precedent this sets.

https://www.breakingnewstime.com/trump-administration-fires-top-noaa-scientist/

[talltexan]

I actually wonder if the flurry of activity:

• Executive order that reclassifies a lot of civil service
• Opening of Alaskan wilderness to new road development
• Barrett
• This NOAA scientist thing
• Limiting of foreign journalists to 200 days, down from five years

Isn't the sign of a group of people recognizing that they will lose power soon and trying to very quickly achieve some things on the way out the door.

Too bad they cannot be motivated to act quickly for the benefit of the American people.

[nereo]

As someone who trained as a scientist and is married to a scientist, I simply cannot overstate how bad a precedent this sets.

https://www.breakingnewstime.com/trump-administration-fires-top-noaa-scientist/

I have never encountered a time when our federal science agencies were as politicized as they are now.  It's horrible, and I can't help but conclude that this is intentional to reduce their standing so that they are easier to eliminate or gut in the future.  Why else would you put Scott Pruit and then Anthony Wheeler at the helm of the EPA (both of whom previously argued that the EPA "should not exist")?

[GuitarStv]

Too bad they cannot be motivated to act quickly for the benefit of the American people.

They didn't try for the past 4 years, it would be a little out of character for them to start now.

[Just Joe]

I actually wonder if the flurry of activity:

• Executive order that reclassifies a lot of civil service
• Opening of Alaskan wilderness to new road development
• Barrett
• This NOAA scientist thing
• Limiting of foreign journalists to 200 days, down from five years

Isn't the sign of a group of people recognizing that they will lose power soon and trying to very quickly achieve some things on the way out the door.

Too bad they cannot be motivated to act quickly for the benefit of the American people.

So how much of Trump's last minute executive orders can be undone by the next president immediately?

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Just reading through this thread these last few days, I can scarcely imagine what another 4 years of Trump will bring!  We have put up with him like marathon runners envisioning the finish line just ahead...  If he truly wins four more years and cannot be impeached, the US will look very different in 2024.  He's done quite an amazing (if not simplistic) job of firing people he does not want around and getting the underpinnings of the country to his liking.  The cabinet was easy enough, but now the virus has spread deeply to the Judicial branch and threatens the legislative branch - if not in a majority, it has turned over to be more loyalists in those that remain.

Like an alcoholic, I just take all of this one day at a time.  This is not the future I have hoped for nor get excited to see, but maybe there is something better beyond - after a second Trump term ends.  But, of course, my big hope is that Trump is a one term President.

[scottish]

I've been surprised by how long it's taken him to purge disloyal management.    In a big corporate shuffle things happen much more quickly.    Out with the old management, in with the new management in just a few months.   4 years is outrageously inefficient.

[bacchi]

Oh look, the NC GOP is petitioning the Supreme Court to kill our mail ballot extension too. Even though the NC Legislature empowered the bipartisan Board of Elections to make decisions such as these. And the bipartisan Board of Elections voted for these COVID-related rule changes unanimously. And the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found for the Board of Elections 12-3. And the fact that the BoE often changes ballot deadlines (like in response to hurricanes), and it's never been a constitutional crisis of "the non-legislature usurping power" before.

What do you want to bet that the SC will change the rules days before or even after the election, both here and in Pennsylvania? That they will choose to ignore thousands of legally-cast votes in states with close elections?

Naked, blatant, obvious, uber-partisain attempts to steal the election for Trump in battleground states. You can dress it up in any fancy language you want but everyone can see it for what it is. Republicans see it as an attempt to steal the election for Trump and applaud it, Democrats see it as an attempt to steal the election for Trump and decry it, but everyone sees it. The unelected Supreme Court should not change the rules of the election last-minute in order to give their party the edge. It's not even in their power to do so, States are empowered to oversee their own elections. It should be going to the NC Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. But Republicans got a taste of stealing elections by overriding the State Supreme Courts in 2000, and so here we are. Republicans even openly stated that this was the reason they had to confirm Barrett before the election: "I think it’s better if you go before the election, because I think this scam that the Democrats are pulling — it’s a scam — the scam will be before the United States Supreme Court."

"Republicans / conservative judges are federalist and believe in letting the states decide for themselves" -> Republican SC overruling state decisions.
"Only the states have the authority to make election law" -> Republican SC changing election law.
"Oh they're just worried about the possibility of ballots mailed after the election, which would be against federal law" -> Republican SC changing rules that have nothing to do with that one provision in Pennsylvania.
"Don't change the rules last-minute right before an election or it will invite chaos and undermine the reliability in the election" -> Republican SC changing the rules right before the election, inviting chaos and undermining the reliability of the election.
Et cetera ad infinitum.

The SC has decided not to expedite the PA case.

There's a possibility that the Court will still hear the case before the 3rd. There's also a distinct possibility that the Court will decide after the election, invalidating any ballots received after the 3rd.

The SC has turned into a festival of partisanship. Pack it.

[nereo]

I've been surprised by how long it's taken him to purge disloyal management.    In a big corporate shuffle things happen much more quickly.    Out with the old management, in with the new management in just a few months.   4 years is outrageously inefficient.

I think this is a testament to how large the executive branch truly is, and how few people there are who are willing to work for this administration, as well as how hard it is to get rid of career, unionized civil servants without cause.  A few positions serve “at the whim of the President” but most other management positions can’t be dismissed quite so easily.

[Glenstache]

Another attempt to pack the Supreme Court would be exceedingly controversial. Much worse, if successful it would vitiate the principle of stare decisis  that provides stability, predictability, and reliance on the great body of  fundamental  law   that constitutes  America's  jurisprudential foundation.


"An interpretation [of the fundamental law] to be changed with each change of administration" would eliminate  the rule of law.


In 1937 the Senate Judiciary Committee issued its Adverse Report that resoundingly rejected FDR's Judicial Reorganization Plan also known as his "Court-packing scheme."

This is a bit confusing of an argument to hear from you.  You've repeatedly argued that the political affiliation of conservative Supreme Court justices is unimportant because they'll all preside over cases fairly according to various legal concepts.

It would seem to follow that legally adding liberal leaning Supreme Court justices should result in no additional unfairness.  Since stare decisis exists for expanding (and shrinking) the size of the court there's no valid argument against based upon that.  Your main objection then appears rooted in the assumption that more liberal justices will not be as fair in their judgements as the conservative ones you have been assuring us will be.

Surely, you see how this argument (coming as it does from a self-professed staunch conservative) is rather lacking?

I give the greatest  weight to  the constitutional erudition  and considered opinions of the senators who drafted the Adverse Report. I cannot be persuaded that its conclusions are wrong or cautioning overstated.


The threat  to pack the Court is fueled by a  zealous  desire for a change on the high bench that will result in the overturn of precedents such as Citizen's United.

This threat is  antithetical to constitutional constancy for the Constitution is only as enduring as the fixity of its guarantees, the durability of its precedents.

There is also a question of legitimacy. The mechanisms by which McConnell (and McGahn, more broadly speaking) got the current judicial makeup was by outright refusing to move forward nominations by others and then expediting those of the GOP. McConnell has not been coy about this and it adds a stain of partisanship to the court. Given that one of ACB's primary qualifications was a dislike of Roe v Wade, which is clearly precedent at this point, an argument for maintaining the current politically-manuevered court makeup on the basis of maintaining precedent feels weak. I appreciate the sentiment behind it, but an evenly balanced court is more likely to work to rule narrowly in order to find consensus and maintain stability. I see a lopsided court - in any political direction - as problematic for rule of law. Democracy is messy and full of contradictions. It is my belief that it comes to the best (imperfect) outcomes through balanced representation. SCOTUS is hardly the only example of this in American gov't at this point.

[sherr]

Oh look, the NC GOP is petitioning the Supreme Court to kill our mail ballot extension too. Even though the NC Legislature empowered the bipartisan Board of Elections to make decisions such as these. And the bipartisan Board of Elections voted for these COVID-related rule changes unanimously. And the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found for the Board of Elections 12-3. And the fact that the BoE often changes ballot deadlines (like in response to hurricanes), and it's never been a constitutional crisis of "the non-legislature usurping power" before.

The SC has decided not to expedite the PA case.

There's a possibility that the Court will still hear the case before the 3rd. There's also a distinct possibility that the Court will decide after the election, invalidating any ballots received after the 3rd.

The SC has turned into a festival of partisanship. Pack it.

Looks like they declined to take the NC case too, at least the one about the ballot deadline extension. I'm actually very surprised, I was fully expecting them to take it and strike down the deadline extension. Although Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have taken it, and Barrett abstained.

And Gorsuch did repeat his "SuCh LaSt-MiNuTe ChAnGeS bY lArGeLy UnAcCoUnTaBlE bOdIeS, iNvItE cOnFuSiOn, RiSk AlTeRiNg ElEcTiOn OuTcOmEs, AnD iN tHe PrOcEsS tHrEaTeN vOtEr CoNfIdEnCe In ThE rEsUlTs" "logic".

Imagine thinking that "altering election outcomes" by COUNTING ALL THE BALLOTS is a bad thing.

[LennStar]

As someone who trained as a scientist and is married to a scientist, I simply cannot overstate how bad a precedent this sets.

https://www.breakingnewstime.com/trump-administration-fires-top-noaa-scientist/

One from the CATO institute is the new chief scientist! LOL
I am not even surprised.

If he truly wins four more years and cannot be impeached,

Trump is impeached.
 

I've been surprised by how long it's taken him to purge disloyal management.    In a big corporate shuffle things happen much more quickly.    Out with the old management, in with the new management in just a few months.   4 years is outrageously inefficient.

In such a shuffle you generally don't fire all 123 country managers and their assistants to put in people outside the company.
Also those shuffles are fast because the incumbent has only a few month to grip the power. A US president has 4.

[Roadrunner53]

Wow, now Donny Boy says if Biden is voted in there will be no Christmas, just wow...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-self-owns-with-warning-about-biden_n_5f9a69bec5b6a4a2dc82501e

[OtherJen]

Campaign related: Tucker Carlson Reports He Lost Only Copy of Documents That Nail Biden

So basically, the dog ate his homework.

[Roadrunner53]

Campaign related: Tucker Carlson Reports He Lost Only Copy of Documents That Nail Biden

So basically, the dog ate his homework.

Hahaha, the only copy...far fetched to say the least! This isn't the 1940's anymore! Dog definitely ate his homework. Hahahahaha!

[talltexan]

In one of his projects, Trump appoints a crony from the logistics business to "slow-walk" mail so that mail-in ballots won't be able to be counted against him.

In a different project, he puts one of his most reliable attack dogs in charge of getting information that will make it obvious just how corrupt his opponent is.

The only problem: the attack dog wants to mail the documents to someone!

[OtherJen]

In one of his projects, Trump appoints a crony from the logistics business to "slow-walk" mail so that mail-in ballots won't be able to be counted against him.

In a different project, he puts one of his most reliable attack dogs in charge of getting information that will make it obvious just how corrupt his opponent is.

The only problem: the attack dog wants to mail the documents to someone!

It has all the hallmarks of a Very Stable Genius plan, for sure.

[Roadrunner53]

The thing is, by suppressing votes, how does he know what is in the ballots? The votes could be for him. Hopefully NOT.

[talltexan]

That's why he suggests supporters monitor polls in urban areas. That's why Gov. Abbott is making it harder to vote in very specific urban counties in Texas. City-dwellers overwhelmingly support democrats. You can use a good deal of geographic profiling because we are sorted by where we choose to live.

[nessness]

The thing is, by suppressing votes, how does he know what is in the ballots? The votes could be for him. Hopefully NOT.

Polls have shown more Democrats than Republicans plan to vote by mail. So by suppressing mail-in votes, sure, he'll lose some votes, but Biden will probably lose more, which could be enough to tip the scales in a close race.

[sherr]

The thing is, by suppressing votes, how does he know what is in the ballots? The votes could be for him. Hopefully NOT.

Polls have shown more Democrats than Republicans plan to vote by mail. So by suppressing mail-in votes, sure, he'll lose some votes, but Biden will probably lose more, which could be enough to tip the scales in a close race.

By almost a 3:1 margin (47% of Ds, 17% of Rs in this poll). So if he can suppress/invalidate/ignore 100k mail-in ballots in a state, then he has probably "gained" about 50k votes relative to where he would have been.

The exact percentages vary by the poll, but the trend is present in all of them. This is why the Republicans have been so dead-set on sabotaging mail-in voting and Trump has constantly been telling his voters to vote in person.

[nereo]

Here's some more context from the Pew Research Center



It should be noted that the GOP's strategy could potentially backfire as well. The mail-in/absentee votes which are most at risk are those which arrive on or after election day - regardless of when they were actually mailed. Republicans are still overwhelmingly planning on voting in-person and on election day (Nov 3).  However, we know from previous elections that external events can suppress in-person turnout... things like severe weather, very long lines or a pandemic. Now we've got  the pandemic surging - in some places it's higher than it has ever been (including in the battle-ground states of Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota).  It's plausible that this could deter enough in-person voters - who are most likely to be Republican - from standing in long lines during a pandemic in possibly miserable weather to shift a close race the other direction.

To be clear I'm appalled by these attempts to limit voter participation.  I think our democracy is stronger when more people participate, and I'm passionate about removing barriers to voting (including widespread availability of mail-in voting and in-person voting).  Just pointing out that this latest gambit could bite the GOP in the ass.  Maybe.

[brandon1827]

I see what you're saying there...but Trump has spent months telling his supporters that the virus is overblown. Judging by the numbers of unmasked people at his rallies, I would assume that the virus won't be a deterrent to people who plan to vote for Trump. It will be more of a deterrent to people who take it seriously; which overwhelmingly seems to be Biden supporters.

[nereo]

I see what you're saying there...but Trump has spent months telling his supporters that the virus is overblown. Judging by the numbers of unmasked people at his rallies, I would assume that the virus won't be a deterrent to people who plan to vote for Trump. It will be more of a deterrent to people who take it seriously; which overwhelmingly seems to be Biden supporters.

I don't think we will have a clear sense of what impact these factors have had on voting for many months, and possibly years.  What I suggested above is just one of several, none of which are mutually exclusive.

Think of it this way.  Suppose you live in a town where - despite the President's rhetoric about "rounding the corner" - there has recently had some large outbreaks and the local authorities are saying the hospital is at 'critical capacity'.  Then suppose it's cold, rainy, miserable November day?  Will a small percentage (say, 1-2%) of 65+ decide "nah, this ain't worth standing in line for an hour?"  It's possible.  Given that the margin of victory was < 1% for multiple states in previous elections, 2% of voters not going to the polls on election day could certainly be the difference.

[talltexan]

Even if Trump cannot cover the distance to victory by suppressing the vote, it also helps strengthen the Republican resistance to a Biden administration by allowing them to claim the election was compromised enough to not adequately reflect the will of the people.

[bacchi]

Campaign related: Tucker Carlson Reports He Lost Only Copy of Documents That Nail Biden

So basically, the dog ate his homework.

Hahaha, the only copy...far fetched to say the least! This isn't the 1940's anymore! Dog definitely ate his homework. Hahahahaha!

It'd be damned ironic if the (supposed) papers were lost in the mail.

The Trump campaign certainly didn't use the first-in-class crew to think of this plot.

[Just Joe]

It is amazing how hard the GOP has worked over the past decade to disenfranchise millions of people.

Don't want people to have healthcare. Don't want people to vote by any reasonable means possible. Want to persecute LGBTQ peoples.

And then all the lies that any reasonably intelligent people can see through.

Side note: We drove by a crowd of Trump flag waving supporters with a bullhorn the other evening. They were repeating discredited QAnon BS.

I think our country is screwed.

[nereo]

It is amazing how hard the GOP has worked over the past decade to disenfranchise millions of people.

Don't want people to have healthcare. Don't want people to vote by any reasonable means possible. Want to persecute LGBTQ peoples.

And then all the lies that any reasonably intelligent people can see through.

Side note: We drove by a crowd of Trump flag waving supporters with a bullhorn the other evening. They were repeating discredited QAnon BS.

I think our country is screwed.

Decade?  I'm amazed at how many decades the GOP has relied on supressing voter turnout.  This was a topic of discussion in my HS government class, which was 20 years ago.
It wasn't a new tactic then, either.

[Roadrunner53]

Does anyone believe Trump actually had the Corona virus? I believed it at first and now I am doubting it very much. I just don't see, even with miraculous drugs, how he could have stayed in the hospital a few days, got out and wanted to reveal a Superman shirt beneath his regular shirt...smells like a stunt. Then he gets back on the campaign trail boasting he recovered. He is seriously travelling around the country each day blathering his BS. Not too many people who had the virus could just resume normal activities within a few days of being dismissed from the hospital. I think it was another one of his reality show capers to show people how insignificant the virus is and no one should even think about it. He knows he blew it containing the virus so he tried to minimize the danger. So, if that is the case, I doubt Melania or the kid had it either. So, that would mean the doctors were in cahoots too. Nothing would surprise me with this clown.

[dandarc]

My first reaction is "Cocaine is a hell of a drug."

He only really has to put on a good show a couple of hours a day, right?

[Just Joe]

Decade?  I'm amazed at how many decades the GOP has relied on supressing voter turnout.  This was a topic of discussion in my HS government class, which was 20 years ago.
It wasn't a new tactic then, either.

I stand corrected. Good point. ;)

[bacchi]

Does anyone believe Trump actually had the Corona virus? I believed it at first and now I am doubting it very much. I just don't see, even with miraculous drugs, how he could have stayed in the hospital a few days, got out and wanted to reveal a Superman shirt beneath his regular shirt...smells like a stunt. Then he gets back on the campaign trail boasting he recovered. He is seriously travelling around the country each day blathering his BS. Not too many people who had the virus could just resume normal activities within a few days of being dismissed from the hospital. I think it was another one of his reality show capers to show people how insignificant the virus is and no one should even think about it. He knows he blew it containing the virus so he tried to minimize the danger. So, if that is the case, I doubt Melania or the kid had it either. So, that would mean the doctors were in cahoots too. Nothing would surprise me with this clown.

Some people are going to handle the illness well. Trump is one of them. He also had $100k in treatments.

If it were fake, he would've had to convince a handful of military doctors and nurses and staff to lie. That seems unlikely.

Finally, he did appear weak in some of the interviews after he was released. Raspy voice, out of breath, etc.

[sherr]

Does anyone believe Trump actually had the Corona virus?

I'm generally against conspiracy theories, especially ones that have literally zero evidence to support them, so yes I believe he had it. The president of the USA is going to get literally the best medical care that exists in the world. It's not at all surprising that he recovered, the surprising thing is that he was so sick for so long, which is just a testament to his general poor health.

[caracarn]

Here's some more context from the Pew Research Center



It should be noted that the GOP's strategy could potentially backfire as well. The mail-in/absentee votes which are most at risk are those which arrive on or after election day - regardless of when they were actually mailed. Republicans are still overwhelmingly planning on voting in-person and on election day (Nov 3).  However, we know from previous elections that external events can suppress in-person turnout... things like severe weather, very long lines or a pandemic. Now we've got  the pandemic surging - in some places it's higher than it has ever been (including in the battle-ground states of Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota).  It's plausible that this could deter enough in-person voters - who are most likely to be Republican - from standing in long lines during a pandemic in possibly miserable weather to shift a close race the other direction.

To be clear I'm appalled by these attempts to limit voter participation.  I think our democracy is stronger when more people participate, and I'm passionate about removing barriers to voting (including widespread availability of mail-in voting and in-person voting).  Just pointing out that this latest gambit could bite the GOP in the ass.  Maybe.

So it is important when looking at these that people realize the group sizes are not the same

Also from Pew Research Democrats have always been larger than Republicans from the total pool of voters since 1995, after being basically equal in 1994.   so that 50% of Republicans who say they will vote on Election Day is a smaller number than 50% of Democrats would be.  Given that the total number of registered voters according to the Census data in 2020 is 152,666,000 that means there are 50 million Dems and 44 million Reps, a not insignificant difference.  Given that over 75 million people have voted already, we have 50% of registered voters already done.  This already puts the accuracy of the chart in question for me because I believe more people chose to get out early or vote by mail than said they would in this survey and given how bad the pandemic how gotten since this poll was taken that is not implausible or illogical.  All the GOP machine has been arguing against was not voting in person, not about not going on Election Day, so I would venture to guess that some of that 50% (and likely some of the 20% Democrats) have changed they minds and have or will vote early in person.  If we hit over 102 million voters before election day (which is not unlikely given the trend) we will clearly prove that 33% are NOT voting on Election Day.  We should also realize that we've never achieved, nor will we likely this time, 100%, so we should assume 90% as a reasonable high turnout which means once we exceed 92 million then this survey is wrong.

Even if things stay as this poll suggests, those 50% of Republicans are a bit under 20 million assuming 90% turnout and you still have over 9 million Democrats voting giving a possible swing of just 11 million votes in an election with 137 million votes likely to be cast, or a bit under 10%.  Given Biden's polling lead exceeds this I still am optimistic that the red ripple will not be enough. 

If Trump wins it will require and electoral college Royal Flush quite more improbable than the 2016 one he drew and those votes will need to show up in the right states.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Here's some more context from the Pew Research Center



It should be noted that the GOP's strategy could potentially backfire as well. The mail-in/absentee votes which are most at risk are those which arrive on or after election day - regardless of when they were actually mailed. Republicans are still overwhelmingly planning on voting in-person and on election day (Nov 3).  However, we know from previous elections that external events can suppress in-person turnout... things like severe weather, very long lines or a pandemic. Now we've got  the pandemic surging - in some places it's higher than it has ever been (including in the battle-ground states of Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota).  It's plausible that this could deter enough in-person voters - who are most likely to be Republican - from standing in long lines during a pandemic in possibly miserable weather to shift a close race the other direction.

To be clear I'm appalled by these attempts to limit voter participation.  I think our democracy is stronger when more people participate, and I'm passionate about removing barriers to voting (including widespread availability of mail-in voting and in-person voting).  Just pointing out that this latest gambit could bite the GOP in the ass.  Maybe.

Someone should probably have stopped Trump from holding super-spreader events (rallies) since these Trump voters are going to end up too sick to go vote on November 3rd...

I've never really understood the strategy behind gathering all of his staunch supporters together anyways.  These people already support Trump, so it doesn't widen his voter base, and in some cases, he risks screwing these people over (being stuck out in the cold, getting sick, etc.).

[Just Joe]

It probably comes down to just whipping up enthusiasm so that his supporters will actually go vote.

On the other hand, our local Trump flag wavers downtown also guarantee that DW and I will go vote against them.

You can't verbally assault us with a bunch of BS and expect we'll vote for your side. I'd happily walk or bicycle several miles to vote against Trump's universe. ;)

[nereo]

Does anyone believe Trump actually had the Corona virus? I believed it at first and now I am doubting it very much. I just don't see, even with miraculous drugs, how he could have stayed in the hospital a few days, got out and wanted to reveal a Superman shirt beneath his regular shirt...smells like a stunt. Then he gets back on the campaign trail boasting he recovered. He is seriously travelling around the country each day blathering his BS. Not too many people who had the virus could just resume normal activities within a few days of being dismissed from the hospital. I think it was another one of his reality show capers to show people how insignificant the virus is and no one should even think about it. He knows he blew it containing the virus so he tried to minimize the danger. So, if that is the case, I doubt Melania or the kid had it either. So, that would mean the doctors were in cahoots too. Nothing would surprise me with this clown.

Some people are going to handle the illness well. Trump is one of them. He also had $100k in treatments.

If it were fake, he would've had to convince a handful of military doctors and nurses and staff to lie. That seems unlikely.

Finally, he did appear weak in some of the interviews after he was released. Raspy voice, out of breath, etc.

I'm with bacci and sherr on this one.  Avoid conspiracy theories that have no supporting evidence, especially when they would require scores of people to lie and.  Generally groups of people are really bad at keeping secrets (gossip), and the large the group the more certain it will come out.

Regardless, even if it was a ploy, I'd say it backfired.  Trump's wanted for months to talk about anything other than the virus, and his infection meant it remained the primary subject all week. A common conclusion from the entire episode was that Trump & Co. unleashed a super-spreader event largely because they didn't take even rudimentary precautions.

[jrhampt]

Does anyone believe Trump actually had the Corona virus? I believed it at first and now I am doubting it very much. I just don't see, even with miraculous drugs, how he could have stayed in the hospital a few days, got out and wanted to reveal a Superman shirt beneath his regular shirt...smells like a stunt. Then he gets back on the campaign trail boasting he recovered. He is seriously travelling around the country each day blathering his BS. Not too many people who had the virus could just resume normal activities within a few days of being dismissed from the hospital. I think it was another one of his reality show capers to show people how insignificant the virus is and no one should even think about it. He knows he blew it containing the virus so he tried to minimize the danger. So, if that is the case, I doubt Melania or the kid had it either. So, that would mean the doctors were in cahoots too. Nothing would surprise me with this clown.

Some people are going to handle the illness well. Trump is one of them. He also had $100k in treatments.

If it were fake, he would've had to convince a handful of military doctors and nurses and staff to lie. That seems unlikely.

Finally, he did appear weak in some of the interviews after he was released. Raspy voice, out of breath, etc.

I'm with bacci and sherr on this one.  Avoid conspiracy theories that have no supporting evidence, especially when they would require scores of people to lie and.  Generally groups of people are really bad at keeping secrets (gossip), and the large the group the more certain it will come out.

Regardless, even if it was a ploy, I'd say it backfired.  Trump's wanted for months to talk about anything other than the virus, and his infection meant it remained the primary subject all week. A common conclusion from the entire episode was that Trump & Co. unleashed a super-spreader event largely because they didn't take even rudimentary precautions.

Yep.

[OtherJen]

Here's some more context from the Pew Research Center



It should be noted that the GOP's strategy could potentially backfire as well. The mail-in/absentee votes which are most at risk are those which arrive on or after election day - regardless of when they were actually mailed. Republicans are still overwhelmingly planning on voting in-person and on election day (Nov 3).  However, we know from previous elections that external events can suppress in-person turnout... things like severe weather, very long lines or a pandemic. Now we've got  the pandemic surging - in some places it's higher than it has ever been (including in the battle-ground states of Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota).  It's plausible that this could deter enough in-person voters - who are most likely to be Republican - from standing in long lines during a pandemic in possibly miserable weather to shift a close race the other direction.

To be clear I'm appalled by these attempts to limit voter participation.  I think our democracy is stronger when more people participate, and I'm passionate about removing barriers to voting (including widespread availability of mail-in voting and in-person voting).  Just pointing out that this latest gambit could bite the GOP in the ass.  Maybe.

Someone should probably have stopped Trump from holding super-spreader events (rallies) since these Trump voters are going to end up too sick to go vote on November 3rd...

I've never really understood the strategy behind gathering all of his staunch supporters together anyways.  These people already support Trump, so it doesn't widen his voter base, and in some cases, he risks screwing these people over (being stuck out in the cold, getting sick, etc.).

He needs the adulation (and the money from donations and merchandise sales). It's why he brags about his crowd sizes. He doesn't actually give a shit about them.

[caracarn]

Someone should probably have stopped Trump from holding super-spreader events (rallies) since these Trump voters are going to end up too sick to go vote on November 3rd...

I've never really understood the strategy behind gathering all of his staunch supporters together anyways.  These people already support Trump, so it doesn't widen his voter base, and in some cases, he risks screwing these people over (being stuck out in the cold, getting sick, etc.).

There is really is no way to stop the president from holding these events.  Local authorities can restrict meeting somewhere (what happened recently) but then they get a random field for a supporter and then people are stuck in freezing cold with no way back to their cars because buses are blocked on two land roads clogged with traffic. 

Trump is really the only candidate to use these rallies in this volume.  It is all because of his drive for ratings and popularity.  His rhetoric is always, looks at the size of my crowds, just like the inauguration four years ago which he still grumbles about.  His rallies are much smaller than pre pandemic only getting a few thousand people.

I am not proud, but I have at times said they can keep doing them and kill off Trump voters.  Survival of the fittest.  When people are too dumb to look out for their own safety, "it is what it is" as their leader says.

What I do not get is he is so pissed off now that he is just speaking out loud on how he'd never be there if not needing their votes and he'll never be back again.  He's telling them to their face he does not like them but they do not understand, again going back to "if too dumb".... 

[Travis]

Someone should probably have stopped Trump...

This is the guy who ran on "I could shoot somebody in broad daylight and get away with it" and it worked.  His Chief of Staff and Secretary of State tease journalists with how easily and often they violate federal campaign laws and there's nobody to stop them.

[scottish]

As we're nearing the date of the presidential election, I found this retrospective on the current president on youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0KDBBaQrYA

[bacchi]

The Tucker story is getting more comical.

After receiving a lot of criticism for mailing the hard copies of "proof" to LA, he admitted later Wed. night that they did have copies.

After people asked why they mailed paper, instead of email or sftp or VPN cloud, he now claims that they scanned it, put it on a flash drive, and then mailed the flash drive. That's what was lost -- not "those documents" but a flash drive sent via UPS.

No explanation of what's on the "lost" flash drive yet. They must still be working on that part of the serial.