Trump outrage of the day

[Lews Therin]

Man I for one am hoping Biden nails Trump to a wall about all of this. There is so much fodder for the debate it should be an utter shit show for Trump. I just hope Biden has his wits about him.

Trump will refute all claims by simply saying: Well, I grew the economy. I made USA great again. Why do you want it to not be great?

and people will continue voting for him.

Probably... but that line gets a little less effective when you or someone you love is out of a job and your retirement account has plummeted.  Anyone think the economy will be “strong” by this fall?

His argument: Imagine of O wasn't here, the world would have died at 95%. I am thr only thing that saved us all.

[sherr]

Was listening to Joe Walsh's podcast ("Fuck Silence") yesterday, and he basically reminded everyone: "This is why we were talking so much about the budget deficit in 2017! We have a lot less margin for this crisis now because of the high deficits we've been running during the boom times..."

Exactly. And it's amazing to me that Republicans in Congress have allowed this. I mean, God, it's criminal how short-sighted they were letting Trump's tax cuts happen during a time when they did not need to stimulate the economy.

Now here we are. And anyone with a brain could have predicted it. Not the coronavirus specifically, but that there would be something eventually where we would need to have that wiggle room. Instead we frittered it away because Trump cared only about getting reelected.

Republicans have been socially conservative, not fiscally conservative for quite some time.

Yes, true. But there is fiscally un-conservative, and then there is just criminally fiscally negligent. This is the latter.

Oh god, this. My only reaction when someone tells me that they are Republican because they are “fiscally conservative” (or “pro-life”) is to nearly fall over laughing. It’s so preposterous. The GOP is neither fiscally conservative nor pro-life. Anyone who thinks it is either should probably consider cult deprogramming.

They're not "pro-religious-freedom" either. People who were actually pro-religious-freedom would have been fighting for gay marriage, not against it. They're only for using the government to force people to act like they're Conservative Christians, as they define it. That's the exact opposite of religious freedom.

[nereo]

The underlying definition of “conservatism” is one who wants to preserve the status quo ( I.e. to conserve it). In most western democracies that is White, Christian and Patriarchal. Interestingly, the conservatives in Muslim nations are likewise hostile towards non-Muslim units.

[cliffhanger]

My favorite Babylon Bee article. I'll admit it does sting.

Republicans Announce Plan to Pretend To Be Fiscally Conservative Again The Moment A Democrat Takes Office

[GuitarStv]

The underlying definition of “conservatism” is one who wants to preserve the status quo ( I.e. to conserve it). In most western democracies that is White, Christian and Patriarchal. Interestingly, the conservatives in Muslim nations are likewise hostile towards non-Muslim units.

That's not a good definition at all though for what we're talking about.

The status quo is currently that gay people are allowed to marry, abortions are legally allowed, and that people have equal opportunity to vote regardless of race.  Modern day 'conservatives' oppose all of these and are attempting to change the status quo to something that was the norm 50+ years ago.  Given this stance, maybe a better term is 'regressives' rather than 'conservatives'.

[Glenstache]

This pretty much sums it up.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/09/carville_republicans_will_kill_people_to_stay_in_power_literally.html

"So my kind of mission here in the short term is to sound the alarm to say Mitch McConnell and the Supreme Court, they're going to do everything they can to hold on to power and Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer, we've got to dig in and make sure states have funding to conduct these elections and to put pressure on them to make sure they're done fairly. This thing in Wisconsin was one of the most awful things I've ever seen in my life. Just the extent they'll go to to hold on to power. It was all about one Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin. They will kill people to stay in power. Literally," Carville said.

See also, Trump and other GOP officials outright saying that they oppose mail in voting because it is bad for Republicans... blah blah some window dressing about fraud (which is largely unsupported).

[skp]

This pretty much sums it up.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/09/carville_republicans_will_kill_people_to_stay_in_power_literally.html

"So my kind of mission here in the short term is to sound the alarm to say Mitch McConnell and the Supreme Court, they're going to do everything they can to hold on to power and Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer, we've got to dig in and make sure states have funding to conduct these elections and to put pressure on them to make sure they're done fairly. This thing in Wisconsin was one of the most awful things I've ever seen in my life. Just the extent they'll go to to hold on to power. It was all about one Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin. They will kill people to stay in power. Literally," Carville said.

See also, Trump and other GOP officials outright saying that they oppose mail in voting because it is bad for Republicans... blah blah some window dressing about fraud (which is largely unsupported).

ttps://apnews.com/3d8cb61172816eedb8fcfd0d23d890b5

Interestingly, Dewine wanted to delay the Ohio primary for safety concerns, the courts vetoed it, he did it anyway, and the Dems sued.

[Glenstache]

This pretty much sums it up.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/09/carville_republicans_will_kill_people_to_stay_in_power_literally.html

"So my kind of mission here in the short term is to sound the alarm to say Mitch McConnell and the Supreme Court, they're going to do everything they can to hold on to power and Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer, we've got to dig in and make sure states have funding to conduct these elections and to put pressure on them to make sure they're done fairly. This thing in Wisconsin was one of the most awful things I've ever seen in my life. Just the extent they'll go to to hold on to power. It was all about one Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin. They will kill people to stay in power. Literally," Carville said.

See also, Trump and other GOP officials outright saying that they oppose mail in voting because it is bad for Republicans... blah blah some window dressing about fraud (which is largely unsupported).

ttps://apnews.com/3d8cb61172816eedb8fcfd0d23d890b5

Interestingly, Dewine wanted to delay the Ohio primary for safety concerns, the courts vetoed it, he did it anyway, and the Dems sued.

Thanks for posting this. I think a difference is that, in this case, the legislature was suing because the gov stepped outside of their legal authority instead of letting the legislature  postpone it (which the article implies they would). Trump was quoted saying that he thought the election should go forward in person, consistent with his consistent trend of downplaying covid risks.

I'm not sure how the legislative authority angle compares to WI (state constitution could be different). That said, I agree with the public health sprit of what the Gov. did. Ohio does have a long history of voter disenfranchisement that does leave me a bit skeptical of secondary political motives, but just don't know about current OH politics to have an informed opinion.

[Kris]

This pretty much sums it up.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/09/carville_republicans_will_kill_people_to_stay_in_power_literally.html

"So my kind of mission here in the short term is to sound the alarm to say Mitch McConnell and the Supreme Court, they're going to do everything they can to hold on to power and Speaker Pelosi and Leader Schumer, we've got to dig in and make sure states have funding to conduct these elections and to put pressure on them to make sure they're done fairly. This thing in Wisconsin was one of the most awful things I've ever seen in my life. Just the extent they'll go to to hold on to power. It was all about one Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin. They will kill people to stay in power. Literally," Carville said.

See also, Trump and other GOP officials outright saying that they oppose mail in voting because it is bad for Republicans... blah blah some window dressing about fraud (which is largely unsupported).

ttps://apnews.com/3d8cb61172816eedb8fcfd0d23d890b5

Interestingly, Dewine wanted to delay the Ohio primary for safety concerns, the courts vetoed it, he did it anyway, and the Dems sued.

Huh. I mean, I was all set to agree with you that it was BS that the Dems complained about it -- but then I see he did it just hours before the elections were supposed to begin.

Despite the title of the article, in the actual body of the article, it seems pretty clear that the Republican House Speaker in Ohio was pretty pissed as well. And that neither the governor nor the Secretary of State had the power to do this, only the Legislature.

Seems like kind of a cluster that could have been avoided by actually working with the Legislature. I can see why they were pissed.

[RetiredAt63]

The American way of government never ceases to amaze me.   Elections Canada runs federal elections, Elections Ontario and it's counterparts run provincial elections.  It's amazing your federal government functions at all, your states have so much control over (what to me are) federal functions. 

Note, not to say our way is perfect. The constitution in 1867 clearly said what was federal and the rest is provincial, but what was simple in 1867 isn't as clear in modern circumstances.  Or convenient, as any student going from high school in one province to university in another soon finds out (education is provincial).

[talltexan]

@RetiredAt63 , I suppose most Americans don't appreciate the fact that our country is really designed not as a government of people, but as a collective Federation of the States.

[Glenstache]

It is difficult to know how much creedence to give this, though it seems entirely consistent with prior Trump administration behavior. At some point, there will be a good inspector general or deep investigative journalism look at this in a systematic fashion. Transparency in distribution process certainly does not seem to be the hallmark of the current efforts, though. 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/ppe-and-ventilators-becomes-patronage-in-trumps-hands

[Psychstache]

@RetiredAt63 , I suppose most Americans don't appreciate the fact that our country is really designed not as a government of people, but as a collective Federation of the States.

I think (or least I personally feel) it's not a lack of understanding as much as a belief that the cons of the structure no longer outweigh the pros in 21st century american life.

[FIPurpose]

@RetiredAt63 , I suppose most Americans don't appreciate the fact that our country is really designed not as a government of people, but as a collective Federation of the States.

I think you could make an argument that that is more of an early flaw that was never corrected for. Early court decisions such as Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) declaring all interstate commerce under the power of the federal government basically knee-capped any sort of loose-federation of states. We basically have a 200 year history of pretending that we are not a strong-federal type government which forces us to keep bad ideas such as the Electoral College and the Senate.

[RetiredAt63]

This is what confuses outsiders. We mostly see the federal side, not the states'. But the states are so involved with how the federal Government is formed.

We are a Dominion, which references back to being a separate part of the British Empire, basically irrelevant now.  But not a federation, even though Canada was founded at Confederation.  Provinces have a lot of control over things like interprovincial trade, sometimes it is easier to trade internationally than with the province next door.  But they don't run the federal political process.

[js82]

@RetiredAt63 , I suppose most Americans don't appreciate the fact that our country is really designed not as a government of people, but as a collective Federation of the States.

I think (or least I personally feel) it's not a lack of understanding as much as a belief that the cons of the structure no longer outweigh the pros in 21st century american life.

Given that the defining divide of our time is not about Texas vs. California or North vs. South, but rather urban vs. rural (and all the cultural differences that tend to break along that fault line), I think it's safe to say that a system centered around state boundaries(most drawn upwards of a century ago) as our primary political division, is woefully outdated.

[Travis]

@RetiredAt63 , I suppose most Americans don't appreciate the fact that our country is really designed not as a government of people, but as a collective Federation of the States.

I think you could make an argument that that is more of an early flaw that was never corrected for. Early court decisions such as Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) declaring all interstate commerce under the power of the federal government basically knee-capped any sort of loose-federation of states. We basically have a 200 year history of pretending that we are not a strong-federal type government which forces us to keep bad ideas such as the Electoral College and the Senate.

We're a long story of compromises and reactions.  USA v1.0 was basically 13 separate countries and no rules. The Constitution was a lot of give and take to get those 13 to all sign on the dotted line and voluntarily give up a lot of those powers.  Two chambers of legislature was a compromise between big and small states, and the Electoral College and our election system in general was the states retaining their individuality in the election process.  Most Americans don't understand that electing the president was never a contest of individual votes. It's always been the states choosing the president from Day 1 - by design.

[FIPurpose]

@RetiredAt63 , I suppose most Americans don't appreciate the fact that our country is really designed not as a government of people, but as a collective Federation of the States.

I think you could make an argument that that is more of an early flaw that was never corrected for. Early court decisions such as Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) declaring all interstate commerce under the power of the federal government basically knee-capped any sort of loose-federation of states. We basically have a 200 year history of pretending that we are not a strong-federal type government which forces us to keep bad ideas such as the Electoral College and the Senate.

We're a long story of compromises and reactions.  USA v1.0 was basically 13 separate countries and no rules. The Constitution was a lot of give and take to get those 13 to all sign on the dotted line and voluntarily give up a lot of those powers.  Two chambers of legislature was a compromise between big and small states, and the Electoral College and our election system in general was the states retaining their individuality in the election process.  Most Americans don't understand that electing the president was never a contest of individual votes. It's always been the states choosing the president from Day 1 - by design.

Right, and despite being US version 14.6, we still have a constitution that requires us to run with 1.0 bugs. For example, when the electoral college was created, news and information traveled slowly, people never actually saw the candidates they were voting for, and the difference in population between the states was much much smaller back then. Add up all those changes, and we have a mostly pointless EC system where most states have actually nullified the free vote of the actual electors. Also no one talks about how a single state legislature could completely take over its state's presidential election on a whim and decide how to allocate electors themselves.

The Supreme Court back in like the 50's decided that State Senators cannot be allocated based on county boundaries, thus making all upper chambers of individual states more or less redundant. Yet only Nebraska has fixed that.

The population difference between states now gives faaaaar more power to small state than it did at the founding. The scales are waaaay out of balance in the Senate.

[RetiredAt63]

^^^ We have similar issues.  The constitutional flexibility isn't there to adjust to new population demographics.  The benefit of the parliamentary system is no electoral college, the federal MPs are elected riding by riding.  Of course that is a system that also has weaknesses, some of which the US constitution tries to avoid.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

One observation on Trump's dodge saying he's taking a positive take on the situation (coronavirus will go away in April, etc) when he explains 'Well, I'm America's cheerleader'...  What Americans need, what we thought we elected, is a quarterback, not someone cheering on the sidelines with their backs turned away from what is going on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLEmYB55bGY

This clip is terrifying, I saw it in real time, and shows just how lost at sea the government has left us all the way through this.  The President knows and understands less than the rest of the country (and certainly less than the experts that he has at his disposal) about what is going on in the world.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

oh, and this https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52239261

I guess it's a good idea to be a cheerleader at this point so you don't have to see your team losing

[LennStar]

oh, and this https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52239261

I guess it's a good idea to be a cheerleader at this point so you don't have to see your team losing

It's not losing, it's dying. And if I got the time table right in my head, the numbers will up to about 30K newly infected (discovered) per day in NY alone, before they hopefully go down due to people not going out anymore.

You might end up with half a million infected at the end of the month. At 5% death rate (from countries where they only test people with symptoms, and I think NY has done only that, if at all), that is 25K dead bodies.
I have a hunch you might need a new cemetery.

[former player]

oh, and this https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52239261

I guess it's a good idea to be a cheerleader at this point so you don't have to see your team losing

It's not losing, it's dying. And if I got the time table right in my head, the numbers will up to about 30K newly infected (discovered) per day in NY alone, before they hopefully go down due to people not going out anymore.

You might end up with half a million infected at the end of the month. At 5% death rate (from countries where they only test people with symptoms, and I think NY has done only that, if at all), that is 25K dead bodies.
I have a hunch you might need a new cemetery.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52241221

[nereo]

^^^ We have similar issues.  The constitutional flexibility isn't there to adjust to new population demographics.  The benefit of the parliamentary system is no electoral college, the federal MPs are elected riding by riding.  Of course that is a system that also has weaknesses, some of which the US constitution tries to avoid.

Plus you’ve still sacked with the crown’s lackey sitting in on your legislative business.  Largely symbolic now, I know, but very strange from a US perspective.

[Leisured]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLEmYB55bGY

This clip is terrifying, I saw it in real time, and shows just how lost at sea the government has left us all the way through this.  The President knows and understands less than the rest of the country (and certainly less than the experts that he has at his disposal) about what is going on in the world.

I am Australian and anti Trump, but I have never heard Trump talk this way before. No bombast, no blaming. Off on facts, no surprise there. The US lost far more in the Spanish flu epidemic a hundred years ago than they will lose to COVID. Trump's bad record on COVID will haunt him, but I acknowledge that he actually sounds like a real human being. Never heard that before.

[RetiredAt63]

^^^ We have similar issues.  The constitutional flexibility isn't there to adjust to new population demographics.  The benefit of the parliamentary system is no electoral college, the federal MPs are elected riding by riding.  Of course that is a system that also has weaknesses, some of which the US constitution tries to avoid.

Plus you’ve still sacked with the crown’s lackey sitting in on your legislative business.  Largely symbolic now, I know, but very strange from a US perspective.

Well, she is OUR queen, technically, and the GG does serve a role, both functional and symbolic.  Plus I think the person serving as GG has reflected the opening up of our society (and maybe a chance to test how receptive society is to change?) - first Brits, then French/English Canadians, then Canadians from more recent immigrant groups, then women.  Our present GG is Julie Payette, so in one person we get Francophone, woman, retired astronaut.  Pretty cool, eh?

[OtherJen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLEmYB55bGY

This clip is terrifying, I saw it in real time, and shows just how lost at sea the government has left us all the way through this.  The President knows and understands less than the rest of the country (and certainly less than the experts that he has at his disposal) about what is going on in the world.

I am Australian and anti Trump, but I have never heard Trump talk this way before. No bombast, no blaming. Off on facts, no surprise there. The US lost far more in the Spanish flu epidemic a hundred years ago than they will lose to COVID. Trump's bad record on COVID will haunt him, but I acknowledge that he actually sounds like a real human being. Never heard that before.

I’ve heard him manage to sound like an adult for short stretches of time, usually when he’s been convinced of the importance of sticking to his pre-written statement. He generally loses interest and the ability to control his ability to self-congratulate and insult after a few minutes.

[js82]

One observation on Trump's dodge saying he's taking a positive take on the situation (coronavirus will go away in April, etc) when he explains 'Well, I'm America's cheerleader'...  What Americans need, what we thought we elected, is a quarterback, not someone cheering on the sidelines with their backs turned away from what is going on.

Here's the thing about optimism... the "I'm an optimist" line only works if it's tethered to reality.  In this situation it means reassuring the public that we can get through this and once we get past this first wave we'll be working on a careful, measured reopening of the economy that balances getting people back to work and keeping people healthy - convincing people that we can get the best possible outcome if everyone does their part.

"Optimism" detached from reality doesn't work - like talking about packing churches on Easter, or fantasizing about sports stadiums packed full of fans.  Optimism in society will come from seeing that our leaders "get it", and thus that their plans for the path forward are sufficiently grounded in reality to have a reasonable degree of confidence that they'll work.  That's where "certain people" have repeatedly missed the boat during this crisis.

[Glenstache]

Rotten:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/10/us/politics/barr-atkinson-trump.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur

[talltexan]

@RetiredAt63 , I suppose most Americans don't appreciate the fact that our country is really designed not as a government of people, but as a collective Federation of the States.

I think you could make an argument that that is more of an early flaw that was never corrected for. Early court decisions such as Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) declaring all interstate commerce under the power of the federal government basically knee-capped any sort of loose-federation of states. We basically have a 200 year history of pretending that we are not a strong-federal type government which forces us to keep bad ideas such as the Electoral College and the Senate.

We're a long story of compromises and reactions.  USA v1.0 was basically 13 separate countries and no rules. The Constitution was a lot of give and take to get those 13 to all sign on the dotted line and voluntarily give up a lot of those powers.  Two chambers of legislature was a compromise between big and small states, and the Electoral College and our election system in general was the states retaining their individuality in the election process.  Most Americans don't understand that electing the president was never a contest of individual votes. It's always been the states choosing the president from Day 1 - by design.

Also no one talks about how a single state legislature could completely take over its state's presidential election on a whim and decide how to allocate electors themselves.

No one is talking about this now, but I think we're going to see it tried this year.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Also no one talks about how a single state legislature could completely take over its state's presidential election on a whim and decide how to allocate electors themselves.

No one is talking about this now, but I think we're going to see it tried this year.

In what way?  I do not anticipate this happening personally, no matter what the outcome of the general election is even if it comes in a totally unbelievable majority for Trump  (the last election had enough wonky things with the electoral college, which failed and left us here).

[js82]

Also no one talks about how a single state legislature could completely take over its state's presidential election on a whim and decide how to allocate electors themselves.

No one is talking about this now, but I think we're going to see it tried this year.

If a state legislature were to do this, and it changed the election outcome, it would be colossally bad for our country (and I mean this regardless of whether my favored candidate benefits or loses from this).  We're talking about a riots-in-the-streets, people getting killed over this level of badness.

Regardless of the flaws of the electoral college, voter roll purges, "strategic" closing of poll locations, and all the other shenanigans that happen in our election system, the legitimacy of our elections comes from the fact that the rules are accepted by the candidates prior to the commencement of voting.  If a candidate wins the most votes in a state, they get the electors.  While electors sometimes "go rogue" this hasn't changed election results.  If this were to happen and it changed the winner, it would render the entire election process - and the candidate that won because of it, illegitimate.

The legitimacy of a government comes from the fact that they won "fair" elections.  Again, I use the word fair a bit loosely here, but voters will react REALLY badly to a state legislature trying to change the rules after votes have been cast.

[bacchi]

The legitimacy of a government comes from the fact that they won "fair" elections.  Again, I use the word fair a bit loosely here, but voters will react REALLY badly to a state legislature trying to change the rules after votes have been cast.

The side that loses the popular vote in a state would simply reframe the issue. The election was stolen from them. The winning side cheated. Therefore, it's perfectly legal for the state leg to reverse the electors.

This could happen if a state that traditionally votes one way changes course in 2020. For example, if Louisiana loves its governor, as it does right now, and Biden squeaks out a win there, things could get messy when the 45% who voted for Trump demand help from the Republican held state leg.


Just to add, I expect the Trump DOJ in this type of situation to be on the side of the popular vote losers, whining about millions of illegal votes. It would end up in the SC again.

[FIPurpose]

The large number of Dem governors likely protects us in this scenario, but imagine a state like PA instead deciding to split the electors based on the vote. Or a state as gerrymandered as WI allocating most of it's electors by congressional district. It would end up having the same effect. GOP playing and changing the game to flip the election in their favor. The problem is that our system has these problems inherent in our system. And changing the system requires getting the vote of those who the system is biased towards.

The only way to protect ourselves against this is a national popular vote.

[bacchi]

The large number of Dem governors likely protects us in this scenario, but imagine a state like PA instead deciding to split the electors based on the vote. Or a state as gerrymandered as WI allocating most of it's electors by congressional district. It would end up having the same effect. GOP playing and changing the game to flip the election in their favor. The problem is that our system has these problems inherent in our system. And changing the system requires getting the vote of those who the system is biased towards.

The only way to protect ourselves against this is a national popular vote.

Wouldn't states splitting the electors do almost the same as a national popular vote? It's not accurate but the 40% of D Texans and the 30% of R Californians would be represented.

[FIPurpose]

The large number of Dem governors likely protects us in this scenario, but imagine a state like PA instead deciding to split the electors based on the vote. Or a state as gerrymandered as WI allocating most of it's electors by congressional district. It would end up having the same effect. GOP playing and changing the game to flip the election in their favor. The problem is that our system has these problems inherent in our system. And changing the system requires getting the vote of those who the system is biased towards.

The only way to protect ourselves against this is a national popular vote.

Wouldn't states splitting the electors do almost the same as a national popular vote? It's not accurate but the 40% of D Texans and the 30% of R Californians would be represented.

No, a national popular vote would be mandating that the game be changed across all states at the same time.

I'm talking about individual states trying to make plays based on polling a few weeks out from an election. Let's say that a likely scenario based on polls is:

Trump takes FL, OH, NC, and one of [AZ, WI, MI]
Biden take the other 2 and PA

PA could say they're going to actually split their votes effectively throwing the entire race to Trump. It would be entirely constitutional, democratic, but highly unethical.

The problem is a single state being able to change its rules at a moment's notice in order to swing electoral votes a particular way.

[LennStar]

The large number of Dem governors likely protects us in this scenario, but imagine a state like PA instead deciding to split the electors based on the vote. Or a state as gerrymandered as WI allocating most of it's electors by congressional district. It would end up having the same effect. GOP playing and changing the game to flip the election in their favor. The problem is that our system has these problems inherent in our system. And changing the system requires getting the vote of those who the system is biased towards.

The only way to protect ourselves against this is a national popular vote.

Wouldn't states splitting the electors do almost the same as a national popular vote? It's not accurate but the 40% of D Texans and the 30% of R Californians would be represented.

No, a national popular vote would be mandating that the game be changed across all states at the same time.

I'm talking about individual states trying to make plays based on polling a few weeks out from an election. Let's say that a likely scenario based on polls is:

Trump takes FL, OH, NC, and one of [AZ, WI, MI]
Biden take the other 2 and PA

PA could say they're going to actually split their votes effectively throwing the entire race to Trump. It would be entirely constitutional, democratic, but highly unethical.

The problem is a single state being able to change its rules at a moment's notice in order to swing electoral votes a particular way.

I think you guys would have fun looking at all the sucession rules in medieval times. ;)

[MasterStache]

One observation on Trump's dodge saying he's taking a positive take on the situation (coronavirus will go away in April, etc) when he explains 'Well, I'm America's cheerleader'...  What Americans need, what we thought we elected, is a quarterback, not someone cheering on the sidelines with their backs turned away from what is going on.

Here's the thing about optimism... the "I'm an optimist" line only works if it's tethered to reality.  In this situation it means reassuring the public that we can get through this and once we get past this first wave we'll be working on a careful, measured reopening of the economy that balances getting people back to work and keeping people healthy - convincing people that we can get the best possible outcome if everyone does their part.

"Optimism" detached from reality doesn't work - like talking about packing churches on Easter, or fantasizing about sports stadiums packed full of fans.  Optimism in society will come from seeing that our leaders "get it", and thus that their plans for the path forward are sufficiently grounded in reality to have a reasonable degree of confidence that they'll work.  That's where "certain people" have repeatedly missed the boat during this crisis.

+1 Great response

[talltexan]

The large number of Dem governors likely protects us in this scenario, but imagine a state like PA instead deciding to split the electors based on the vote. Or a state as gerrymandered as WI allocating most of it's electors by congressional district. It would end up having the same effect. GOP playing and changing the game to flip the election in their favor. The problem is that our system has these problems inherent in our system. And changing the system requires getting the vote of those who the system is biased towards.

The only way to protect ourselves against this is a national popular vote.

Wouldn't states splitting the electors do almost the same as a national popular vote? It's not accurate but the 40% of D Texans and the 30% of R Californians would be represented.

No, a national popular vote would be mandating that the game be changed across all states at the same time.

I'm talking about individual states trying to make plays based on polling a few weeks out from an election. Let's say that a likely scenario based on polls is:

Trump takes FL, OH, NC, and one of [AZ, WI, MI]
Biden take the other 2 and PA

PA could say they're going to actually split their votes effectively throwing the entire race to Trump. It would be entirely constitutional, democratic, but highly unethical.

The problem is a single state being able to change its rules at a moment's notice in order to swing electoral votes a particular way.

Where were you guys in 2000? It starts when the popular vote in a state is very close. The reasons the vote could be close may or may not be legitimately democratic. If Republicans control the legislature (North Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin), then the Governor is kind of irrelevant; the Secretary of State matters more, and that person can also do quite a bit to affect voting in the time leading up to the election. I think this election will be very close for a variety of reasons. We could legitimately expect four or more states to have the kind of razor-thin margins that Florida had in that 2000 election.

There are also states like Maine and Nebraska where districts split their electoral vote tally.

[nereo]

5.5. Months until the general election.  That’s an eternity in politics.  This race could be a nail-biter or a blowout, and much of that depends on what happens over the next summer. 

[bacchi]

Fauci indirectly questioned Trump's slow reactions to the coronavirus and now Trump is retweeting #FireFauci.

I originally guessed he'd be gone by Easter so I'm changing my guess to...May 1, when Trump will try to restart the economy. "He's not needed anymore."

I don't think this will help Trump's numbers. Fauci seems to be liked and is the "national" doctor of the coronavirus response. He's not an unknown general or chief of staff.

[Kris]

Fauci indirectly questioned Trump's slow reactions to the coronavirus and now Trump is retweeting #FireFauci.

I originally guessed he'd be gone by Easter so I'm changing my guess to...May 1, when Trump will try to restart the economy. "He's not needed anymore."

I don't think this will help Trump's numbers. Fauci seems to be liked and is the "national" doctor of the coronavirus response. He's not an unknown general or chief of staff.

Conservatives are slowly turning against Fauci now, because Trump is. So by the time Trump fires him, Fauci will be the enemy. I'm already seeing people on social media calling him a shill for Big Pharma and all sorts of other nutty accusations about him.

[nereo]

It occurs to me there are two possible scenarios here

1) Trump really does want the country open ASAP, and will do so in early May.  If that’s the case I see two outcomes; either the virus stays under control and Trump will claim he’s a genius that prevented another depression, OR ioutbreaks will flare up all over the place, more will die, we’ll go back under quarantine (but Trump will still somehow say he’s a genius).

Or..

2) Trump wants someone (likely Fauci) to “hold him back” and tell him we’ve got to stay the course.  He’ll of course keep publicly pushing to reopen only to be “talked out of it” each time. Fauci becomes the sacrificial goat.  If the economy continues to tank Trump will come out looking like the person who ‘correctly’ judged the “cure is worse than the disease”.  If the economy just putters along he’ll *still* get to claim it would have been better... just look at how ‘GREAT’ everything was before Fauci and the American-hating Dems locked everyone at home!”

I’m starting to believe #2 is really what’s going on... though perhaps this is giving DJT too much credit.

[Kris]

It occurs to me there are two possible scenarios here

1) Trump really does want the country open ASAP, and will do so in early May.  If that’s the case I see two outcomes; either the virus stays under control and Trump will claim he’s a genius that prevented another depression, OR ioutbreaks will flare up all over the place, more will die, we’ll go back under quarantine (but Trump will still somehow say he’s a genius).

Or..

2) Trump wants someone (likely Fauci) to “hold him back” and tell him we’ve got to stay the course.  He’ll of course keep publicly pushing to reopen only to be “talked out of it” each time. Fauci becomes the sacrificial goat.  If the economy continues to tank Trump will come out looking like the person who ‘correctly’ judged the “cure is worse than the disease”.  If the economy just putters along he’ll *still* get to claim it would have been better... just look at how ‘GREAT’ everything was before Fauci and the American-hating Dems locked everyone at home!”

I’m starting to believe #2 is really what’s going on... though perhaps this is giving DJT too much credit.

Unfortunately, I do think #2 is giving him too much credit. I mean, I sort-of-sort-of think that might have been his "plan", at moments... it's just that he has so little focus and such poor impulse control that he won't be able to stay on that course, in spite of himself.

He just retweeted a "Fire Fauci" post, and if I had to venture a guess, I think the esteemed doctor will be out by May 1 at the latest. And then he'll bring in another sycophant -- someone who won't try to hold him back. And then...

Well, we'll see.

[Pizzabrewer]

And now he wants to kill the post office.

[GuitarStv]

And now he wants to kill the post office.

Good.  Nobody's using the post office any more in this age of social isolation.

[Kris]

And now he wants to kill the post office.

Good.  Nobody's using the post office any more in this age of social isolation.

Definitely not voters, that's for sure.

Oh, wait...

[ixtap]

And now he wants to kill the post office.

Good.  Nobody's using the post office any more in this age of social isolation.

I certainly didn't carefully weigh out my letters to make sure I got one to each niece and nephew with my existing stamps, and then put more stamps on my shopping list.

I would never hand write a card to my mother to try to cheer her up. Because she doesn't still have the last hand written card I sent her hanging in her craft room.

And she hasn't sent a card to every single child, child in law and grandchild for their birthday and anniversaries ever since the eldest first went to college.

[GuitarStv]

And now he wants to kill the post office.

Good.  Nobody's using the post office any more in this age of social isolation.

I certainly didn't carefully weigh out my letters to make sure I got one to each niece and nephew with my existing stamps, and then put more stamps on my shopping list.

I would never hand write a card to my mother to try to cheer her up. Because she doesn't still have the last hand written card I sent her hanging in her craft room.

And she hasn't sent a card to every single child, child in law and grandchild for their birthday and anniversaries ever since the eldest first went to college.

I bet deliveries are way down too.  What with people trying to get out and mingle as much as possible with others.  :P

[Kris]

And now he wants to kill the post office.

Good.  Nobody's using the post office any more in this age of social isolation.

I certainly didn't carefully weigh out my letters to make sure I got one to each niece and nephew with my existing stamps, and then put more stamps on my shopping list.

I would never hand write a card to my mother to try to cheer her up. Because she doesn't still have the last hand written card I sent her hanging in her craft room.

And she hasn't sent a card to every single child, child in law and grandchild for their birthday and anniversaries ever since the eldest first went to college.

I bet deliveries are way down too.  What with people trying to get out and mingle as much as possible with others.  :P

And let's not forget all of the orders people are placing that say they're going through UPS or other private delivery companies... but which those private businesses actually send through the USPS for final delivery, because either they can't handle the load, or aren't interested in driving things out into the sticks, or a host of other reasons.

That certainly hasn't been happening at all, either.