This is what happens when I get 6 hours of sleep.
I'll leave it up for posterity. Holy shit that's terrible. Sorry everyone.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
US PoliERA 2018 |OT9| Next week has been EXHAUSTING
- Thread starter Midnight Jon
- Start date
- Status
I'll leave it up for posterity. Holy shit that's terrible. Sorry everyone.
It's practically impossible to investigate allegations this old without a paper trail or multiple corroborating witnesses. A civil case would probably be more appropriate, but I don't think Ford is interested in spending the rest of her life looking over her shoulders.
Ivanka Trump is not a reliable source on Ivanka Trump, and if it's Gabe Kaplan reporting, his source is Ivanka Trump.
I wouldn't blame Ford for not testifying, in fact I don't expect her to. To subject yourself to threats of personal injury, eviction and death—and that's just from the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee.
It's impossible to investigate to the point where you could convince the DOJ to press charges, but that isn't what this is about at all. It is not impossible or even out of the ordinary for an investigation to happen in the context of a background check for someone who is about to take federal office. The fact that the FBI isn't interviewing people about this is unconscionable.
But obviously it is a good thing if he thinks 2020 is the thing to focus on and that he's not responsible for what happens in 2018.
The DoJ already chimed in that the allegation isn't a federal crime and totally not their job as far as background checks go:
They ask the question "has this person committed a felony? Y/N", opening up 30 yo assault cold cases that have nothing to do with government or crimes against the state is a job for local law enforcement.
OKay, some NM02 thoughts, then some TX07 thoughts when they're done, then I'm not going to watch these polls for the rest of the night.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/elections-poll-nm02-1.html
NM02
OPEN
Romney+7
Trump+10
Torres Small (D): 46
Herrell (R): 45
This is an interesting district. Majority Hispanic, but a lot of rural whites and with low Hispanic turnout, it's generally the Republican base of New Mexico. We won the seat back in 2008, but in general, it usually proves a hard live. Incumbent Steve Pearce is doing his favorite thing, which is running for statewide office during wave years for Democrats so that leaves this seat open. We see here with the toplines it's fairly neck and neck, but unlike other districts under the hood doesn't look particularly Republican or Democratic.
First, favorables:
Torres Small: 33/17
Herrell: 23/20
Both are largely unknown, though Herrell is a state rep, so it should be concerning to her that her numbers aren't higher. On the other hand, Torres Small has great net favorables, though she's still at 50% Don't Know.
Trump Approval: 47/47
Preferred House Control: R 50, D 43
You see here two things: Trump is neither popular nor unpopular, and half want Republican control of Congress. But while only 43% admit to wanting Democratic control, Torres Small is running 3 points ahead of that number. If she consolidates the Trump disapproval (likely) and enough of the don't care about control with some R support, she can get to 50+1%. The R+7 GCB gives me pause, but the vast majority of undecided votes are Hispanic, and my guess/hope is that they'll break Torres Small's way. I would honestly shift this from Lean Republican to Tossup.
Nate agrees.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/elections-poll-nm02-1.html
NM02
OPEN
Romney+7
Trump+10
Torres Small (D): 46
Herrell (R): 45
This is an interesting district. Majority Hispanic, but a lot of rural whites and with low Hispanic turnout, it's generally the Republican base of New Mexico. We won the seat back in 2008, but in general, it usually proves a hard live. Incumbent Steve Pearce is doing his favorite thing, which is running for statewide office during wave years for Democrats so that leaves this seat open. We see here with the toplines it's fairly neck and neck, but unlike other districts under the hood doesn't look particularly Republican or Democratic.
First, favorables:
Torres Small: 33/17
Herrell: 23/20
Both are largely unknown, though Herrell is a state rep, so it should be concerning to her that her numbers aren't higher. On the other hand, Torres Small has great net favorables, though she's still at 50% Don't Know.
Trump Approval: 47/47
Preferred House Control: R 50, D 43
You see here two things: Trump is neither popular nor unpopular, and half want Republican control of Congress. But while only 43% admit to wanting Democratic control, Torres Small is running 3 points ahead of that number. If she consolidates the Trump disapproval (likely) and enough of the don't care about control with some R support, she can get to 50+1%. The R+7 GCB gives me pause, but the vast majority of undecided votes are Hispanic, and my guess/hope is that they'll break Torres Small's way. I would honestly shift this from Lean Republican to Tossup.
Nate agrees.
Last edited:
According to CNN, Ford wants an FBI investigation before she testifies.
Edit: Sounds like she won't be testifying on Monday.
Edit: Sounds like she won't be testifying on Monday.
I don't blame her. No reason to go through the grilling if its a no-faith effort.
2020 the "real" election? Trump a secret democrat, confirmed.
If either the White House or Grassley requested more from the DoJ that would do it. I really don't know why you are fixated on opening a 30 year old case when that is not what this is at all. I am not going to implicitly trust a Orrin Hatch spin tweet and would suggest you don't either. The GOP desperately want this to be seen as a criminal case because it is far easier to dismiss that way. That is not what this is.
Shocking that Trump cares only about himself... obviously Republicans never could have seen this coming.
I mean, I don't blame her. Having a third party assess the situation and the facts before she throws herself to the wolves about something she did not want to be involved with in the first place is the right thing to do, as frustrating as it might be to some of us. Let's see how it plays out.
This letter sets up a game of chicken between Ford and Grassley. I think this is a power play from Ford more than it is her shirking away.
But the Fair only comes around once a year and there is a chance that if you go you might see Kasich eating a corn dog and nobody wants to risk that.
He'll get confirmed. The blame belongs not to her, but to the farce put on by those fucking toads in the Senate.
We'll get Kavanaugh after we get Congress.
We'll get Kavanaugh after we get Congress.
I think, to be prudent, everyone here should take a wait and see approach.
Thank you. It doesn't make the GOP look any better if they don't meet her request, particularly since it doesn't sound unreasonable. The obvious question is why not?
But what sucks is Brett and GOP are gonna have a nice Monday calling her a liar and what not without her there.
"We gave her a chance to testify. She declined, giving a list of unreasonable demands, and so we're moving forward with the confirmation"
It's early (193 respondents), but, um... You could say Rod Blum is off to a slow start. I literally said "OOF" when I looked.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/elections-poll-ia01-1.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/elections-poll-ia01-1.html
It gives them an easy out. They gave her a chance and she didn't show up.
This will be what they go with, but I don't know how much the general public are going to believe "Let the FBI look into this" is really an unreasonable demand.
Pretty much. Now we wait to see if those other allegations bear out
- Status