US PoliEra 2019 |OT7| It's happening

Status
Not open for further replies.

nintendoman58

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,497
I mean, if they don’t certify the results of an election, it’s basically a coup at that point right?

Like, that would basically just set a really awful precedent nationwide where other governments just refuse to leave. What happens then? State secession?
 

Kaitos

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,254
What happens then? Pelosi becomes president?
I think so, yes.

So, here's what happened in 2004:


Alleging widespread "irregularities" on Election Day, a group of Democrats in Congress objected earlier Thursday to the counting of Ohio's 20 electoral votes.

The challenge was defeated 267-31 by the House and 74-1 by the Senate, clearing the way for the joint session to count the votes from the remaining states.

The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.

The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.
Thursday's joint session of the House of Representatives and the Senate to count electoral votes is specified in the U.S. Constitution. Cheney, in his role as president of the Senate, presided over the session.

The results from each state, read in alphabetical order, were ticked through quickly until Ohio was called, and a clerk read the objection filed by Boxer and Tubbs Jones.

Then, as required by congressional rules in the event that at least one member of each house objects to the vote, Cheney ordered the lawmakers back to their respective chambers for two hours of debate on the merits of the challenge and to vote on it.

It was only the second such challenge since the current rules for counting electoral votes were established in 1877. The last was in 1969 and concerned a so-called "faithless elector," according to congressional researchers.

Four years ago, after the disputed election results in Florida, members of the Congressional Black Caucus attempted to block Florida's electoral votes from being counted.

In a scene recalled in Michael Moore's movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," lawmaker after lawmaker was gaveled down by Vice President Al Gore because no senator would support the objections, as the rules require.

House Democrats involved in this year's protest worked for weeks to enlist the support of a senator in their party, and Boxer agreed to join the effort Wednesday.
So, the first issue with Trump narrowly losing in 2020 would be the SoS and governors of the swing states. Thankfully, we have the SoS positions in NC, AZ, WI, MI, PA, and AZ, and the governorship in all of those states minus AZ. So even if Trump is up, by say, 5k in Wisconsin, you'd expect that would hold and the recounts would be done with integrity. A Florida2000 like scenario is certainly possible, though very very unlikely. Either way, be glad we won these, especially Wisconsin. Trump probably doesn't have many recourses to challenge the results unless they were exceedingly close, even accounting for a 5-4 GOP majority on the Supreme Court (they only really had the power to do what they were doing because the vote total was in a large pop state with the vote total under 1000 votes where a recount could matter). So those would be most likely be certified.

Your next issue would be faithless electors. This is the biggest fear. It's likely that forcing your electors to vote for a candidate they don't want to could be struck down (this happened in Washington state, I believe), so you'd really have to double/triple/quadruple check when getting your slate of electors. Honestly, the nominees' team should handle this.

So then let's assume that Dems keep the house, GOP keeps the Senate (likely). GOP does not certify the result because it was too close in Wisconsin. So there's no president-elect or vice president-elect. What happens then? According to Wikipedia:

“Section 3 provides that if there is no president-elect on January 20, or the president-elect "fails to qualify", the vice president-elect would become acting president on January 20 until there is a qualified president. The section also provides that if the president-elect dies before noon on January 20, the vice president-elect becomes president. In cases where there is no president-elect or vice president-elect, the amendment also gives the Congress the authority to declare an acting president until such time as there is a president or vice president”


“At this point the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 would apply, with the office of the Presidency going to the speaker of the House of Representatives, followed by the president pro tempore of the Senate and various Cabinet officers. “
So at that point, it would seem the Speaker (Pelosi) would become the president. Complicated but... I think that's right?
 

Avinash117

Member
Oct 25, 2017
875
I think Trump losing in 2020 and running again in 2024 is way more likely than him trying to remain in office indefinitely or something.
I can try to make the Trump family a dynasty. If Trump loses 2020, he wouldn't go into obscurity like other presidents. He will contiune to be active, shit posting the Democratic president. He will also likely assert himself into the Republican Party along with his children. Trumpism is probably going to remain a thing for a decade or so. If he breaks norms while he is in office what wouldn't he do while he is out of it?
 
Last edited:

RustyNails

Member
Oct 26, 2017
10,450
Trump needs to lose electoral college by like 300 votes. That's when the reality of something true will really hit him for the first time. Dumbass framed his electoral college win and shows it off to foreign dignitaries.
 

Kaitos

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,254
I can't believe that we've gotten to the point where I had to look up what would happen if the results aren't certified.
 

Pooh

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,945
The Hundred Acre Wood
Great dynamic we have where Democrats are afraid of issuing a subpoena to a translator who was literally in the room with Putin and Trump and knows everything they said out of the potential fear how that could affect diplomacy going forward but have a Republican Party that totally might just not certify the results of an election because why not
The Democrats are cowards, plain and simple.
 

Vena

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,316
You can really tell he was desperate for a win, regardless of the context.

But it also gives him reason to just bury his head in the sand, though he was likely to do it regardless of the result.

From +12 to +2 is a disaster. If I were the in the House and still unsure of 2020 for the GOP, I'd be fleeing.
 

dlauv

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,407

Second TX poll with Warren ahead of Beto in the span of 24 hours. The first being Ragnar.


Univision Biden and Beto in a tie with an odd Castro boost.


Quinnipac is coming with theirs today I think. It should be noted that Independents weren't polled in any of these, and TX is an open primary.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,455
It's weird to have so much Texas polling. The debate is there sure, but it's not going to be a nominee decider ultimately I imagine.

Sanders support drops off a cliff basically at age 44 lol.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,455
Wait, Warren wants Google to split off it's Ad business from Search and wouldn't allow exchange/sale of data. Search is essentially worthless without Ads lol. Ads are considerably less valuable, without search data. Google's entire business is basically data and ads, and using them together.

Stopping Amazon from selling Basics is a whatever. I don't really see why this sort of regulatory action is restricted only to a digital store though? Like supermarkets have their own private label and can display them more prominently?

Facebook sucks though. Ban Facebook.
 

Rover

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,461
Wait, Warren wants Google to split off it's Ad business from Search and wouldn't allow exchange/sale of data. Search is essentially worthless without Ads lol. Ads are considerably less valuable, without search data. Google's entire business is basically data and ads, and using them together.

Stopping Amazon from selling Basics is a whatever. I don't really see why this sort of regulatory action is restricted only to a digital store though? Like supermarkets have their own private label and can display them more prominently?

Facebook sucks though. Ban Facebook.
"Search" is a vague term and needs some clarification. Google harvests way more data than just whatever people key into the search box.

I'd argue Google could survive, but at the same time I wonder if only splitting search from ads is really all that meaningful for whatever the goal of the legislation is.
 

JesseEwiak

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
1,306
Wait, Warren wants Google to split off it's Ad business from Search and wouldn't allow exchange/sale of data. Search is essentially worthless without Ads lol. Ads are considerably less valuable, without search data. Google's entire business is basically data and ads, and using them together.

Stopping Amazon from selling Basics is a whatever. I don't really see why this sort of regulatory action is restricted only to a digital store though? Like supermarkets have their own private label and can display them more prominently?

Facebook sucks though. Ban Facebook.
When it comes to Amazon Basics, there's a massive difference between a grocery store putting it's generics in a slightly nicer placement on the front of the aisle, as opposed to what Amazon does with it's own products.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,455
I mean sure, Amazon has access to a level of behavioral data, not just actual purchase but general browsing, reviews, etc, that a big box retailer doesn't have, and a search engine that they can direct preferentially to their private label.

Do regulators step in if like Walmart refuses to carry a brand or product, and then sells a private label good in that category? Have there been modern test cases of this out of curiosity.

At least since the 1970s, courts have been very skeptical of antitrust plaintiffs who can’t show that the challenged conduct would cause prices to go up or quality to go down. In this case, Amazon can argue, quite vehemently that, through its platform, consumers are paying lower prices, say legal experts.

And while Amazon’s brands have quickly gained market share on its platform in some areas, in other segments, such as apparel, they account for less than 1 percent of the inventory sold. And when broadened out to include brick-and-mortar stores, its online share of the battery market equals less than 5 percent. Until Amazon’s share of the total market starts to reach closer to 40 percent or more, it is difficult to argue there is an attempted-monopolization case, say legal experts.
Still, others argue a dominant question in any sort of antitrust action has been whether the company’s actions or a planned merger would harm consumers.

“You have to show that the end game is some sort of consumer harm, either through higher prices or lower quality,” said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and the Wharton School. “And so far, Amazon doesn’t even show up on the radar screen when it comes to consumer harm.”
Warren takes a broader view of anticompetitive action than the legal system has traditionally. So it will be interesting to see how it plays out if she wins.
 
Last edited:

Casa

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,623
So should we assume that when Trump is on the ballot next year we have a better or worse chance in NC having seen last nights results?
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,546
So should we assume that when Trump is on the ballot next year we have a better or worse chance in NC having seen last nights results?
As someone who previously lived in NC, my current gut feeling (which isn't necessarily very reliable here) is that it's really hard to tell. I think the more liberal city-side parts of the state have grown increasingly sick of Trump, just like the rest of the country, and will show up in a big way... however the rural portions of the state are a-plenty and could churn out more support for Trump too.
 

cameron

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
8,951

More Democrats and left-leaning independents had a favorable impression of Sen. Elizabeth Warren than others in the Democratic field, including frontrunner Joe Biden, ahead of Thursday’s debate, according to the latest PBS NewsHour, NPR and Marist poll.
And while the poll showed Democrats still have questions about the candidates, one thing is clear: they want someone who can beat President Donald Trump.
When asked to pick between a Democratic nominee who represented their values, or one who had the best chance of beating Trump, 58 percent of Democrats and left-leaning independents said they wanted someone who can win in 2020. That sentiment has risen significantly since June when 46 percent of Democratic voters said they preferred someone who could win.
The urge to beat Trump mattered more to Democrats and like-minded independents than a presidential candidate who inspired them, the poll found. Thirty-seven percent of respondents said they cared more about a candidate who inspired them, while 61 percent said they wanted someone who would trounce Trump in the general election.

 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,455
I think that the strategy to be a Happy Warrior is behind her maintaining net favourables as her name recognition grows. And she still has a bit of room to grow with 15% never heard of/ not sure.

How have you not heard of Joe Biden lol.
 

Y2Kev

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,946
Dan McCready was a traditional Hollywood coastal elite liebrul when we should have nominated Joe Biden for the seat.
 

Teggy

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,000
Totally true story



Also, trump is commemorating 9/11 by calling Powell names and saying the fed rate should be 0%.
 

Casa

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,623
Kamala has seemingly fallen off a cliff when it comes to national media attention in recent weeks and is still destroying Trump in that poll. Damn.
 

Aarglefarg

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,239
The "second choice" polling from Morning Consult from 9/9:
https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/ (hovering over each face in that section)

The second choice of:
Biden supporters = 26% Sanders, 24% Warren, 12% Harris
Sanders supporters = 29% Biden, 27% Warren, 7% Harris
Warren supporters = 24% Sanders, 21% Biden, 19% Harris
Harris supporters = 27% Warren, 23% Biden, 12% Sanders
Buttigieg supporters = 25% Warren, 21% Biden, 16% Harris
 

DrROBschiz

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,960

The only accurate polls are the ones Michael Cohen has rigged
I mean

He is right in that we should in no way be comfortable going into the general with favorable polls

This new reality we live in is scary and its going to take massive efforts to get the turnout we need to win regardless of how awful trump is
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,546
The "second choice" polling from Morning Consult from 9/9:
https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/ (hovering over each face in that section)

The second choice of:
Biden supporters = 26% Sanders, 24% Warren, 12% Harris
Sanders supporters = 29% Biden, 27% Warren, 7% Harris
Warren supporters = 24% Sanders, 21% Biden, 19% Harris
Harris supporters = 27% Warren, 23% Biden, 12% Sanders
Buttigieg supporters = 25% Warren, 21% Biden, 16% Harris
So Warren is the leading second choice pick for both Harris and Buttigieg supporters and is running neck-and-neck for being the second choice for both Biden and Bernie's bases too, just behind each other.

This seems like a bit of a big deal to me?
 

B-Dubs

Oh well, what the hell?
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
17,387
So Warren is the leading second choice pick for both Harris and Buttigieg supporters and is running neck-and-neck for being the second choice for both Biden and Bernie's bases too, just behind each other.

This seems like a bit of a big deal to me?
It kinda is. Once people start dropping or becoming non-viable the voters will move to their second choices.
 

kalindana

Member
Oct 28, 2018
182
Quinnipiac with another Texas primary poll: Biden 28 (-2); Warren 18 (+7); Sanders 12 (-3); Beto 12 (-4); Harris 5 (+1); Castro 3 (-1); Buttigieg 3; Klobuchar 2 (+2); Yang 1; Booker 1; Delaney 1 (-1)

Among Democratic and Democratic leaning voters, 32 percent say that Biden would be the best leader, with Warren at 20 percent and Sanders at 12 percent. No other candidate gets more than single digit support.

The same voters say that Warren has the best policy ideas at 31 percent, while 15 percent go for Biden and Sanders gets 13 percent. No other candidate gets more than single digit support. When they are asked which candidate has the best chance of beating Donald Trump in 2020, Biden dominates with 50 percent. Sanders and Warren get 10 percent each, and no other candidate gets more than single digit support.
Thinking about issues in this year's primary, 22 percent of these voters say that health care is the most important issue to their vote, followed by a three-way virtual tie between climate change at 16 percent, the economy at 15 percent, and gun policy at 15 percent.
Trump approval is 45-50 in Texas:
President Trump's job approval rating remains marginally underwater in Texas, with 45 percent of registered voters saying that they approve and 50 percent saying that they disapprove. Thinking ahead to 2020, 48 percent of Texas voters say that they would definitely not vote for Trump if he was the Republican nominee, while 35 percent say that they would definitely vote for him and 14 percent say that they would consider voting for him.
 

Slayven

I don’t know what you’re talking about
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
40,416
But this lends itself to what is still surprisingly (to me) a revelation:

Black people, by virtue of being a universally repressed minority (and thus, taboo), are taste makers. When it comes to the American cultural zeitgeist, we're culture makers. It's no surprise that so many white American comedians get into trouble for their persistent desire to immolate black people. It is no surprise that young American queer culture (think Drag Race and all that revolves around it), is making millions of dollars and becoming a dominant cultural force by talking exactly like my 60+ year old aunties talk. It's no surprise that hip-hop culture is the most bankable American cultural export at the moment. It's no surprise that things that become popular in the American GP was almost always popular among black people for years prior. For better and worse (and yes, there is a lot of worse) Black people have a dominant effect on culture.

So what does that mean? It means that when Black juggernauts like T.I., Monica and Tyler Perry, Georgian juggernauts, go out and stump for you...you'd be a fool to think that the only people effected by this are black people. Georgia only needed to get blacker by a few degrees for Atlanta to become America's Black Mecca, and for cultural elements that appeal to black people first to have a wider impact on the state as a whole.

So a white man, like Ossoff, who hasn't demonstrated an ability to appeal to black people, in Georgia? Yeah, I'm not holding my breath.
It's too early in the morning to be going to church
 

Suiko

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,846
So Warren is the leading second choice pick for both Harris and Buttigieg supporters and is running neck-and-neck for being the second choice for both Biden and Bernie's bases too, just behind each other.

This seems like a bit of a big deal to me?
If I were to place a bet on the Primary, that information would have me place a sizable bet on her winning.
Biden has increasing liabilities, probably due to his age, making him look inept whether it would effect his ability to do the job or not.

Warren's tactical nuke, in hindsight, was actually a tactical nuke, and fizzled out the only 'negative' story about her that seemed to get any traction. She is in a really good position to win the primary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.