• The GiftBot 2.0 Launch Giveaway Extravaganza has come to a close with an astounding 8073 games given away to the community by 696 members, a huge success thanks to you! The gifting now continues with more official prizes in the new Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Leftover Steam codes are also being given away to the PC Gaming Era community.

US PoliEra 2019 |OT7| It's happening

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aaron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,266
YouGov has been more bullish on Warren than most other pollsters, so while I'm happy to see her pull into a tie I'm not exactly doing cartwheels.
 

Joe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,517
It sucks, because as much as any other candidate would get a boost from winning Iowa, I think if Biden wins it, this thing is pretty much over.
 

Zyrokai

Member
Nov 1, 2017
1,209
I think so, yes.

So, here's what happened in 2004:






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:



So at that point, it would seem the Speaker (Pelosi) would become the president. Complicated but... I think that's right?
Um. None of this will happen, right?
 

Aaron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,266
While both are under 50 percent approval, Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. John Cornyn remain above water with a 49 - 40 percent approval rating for Cruz and a 41 - 34 percent approval rating for Cornyn. Nearly identical to his disapproval number, 35 percent of voters say that they would definitely not vote for Cornyn in 2020, while 30 percent say they would consider voting for him and 23 percent say that they would definitely vote for him.
I don't know how many times this has to come up before the "if Beto couldn't beat TED CRUZ, who EVERYONE OBVIOUSLY HATES, how can any Democrat possibly beat Cornyn, who is INVINCIBLE???" talking point can finally retire to the old folks' home, but here's one more. Cornyn's approval rating is lower, his spread is lower (+9 for Cruz versus +7 for Cornyn), and he is significantly more unknown.
 

Kaitos

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,761
Um. None of this will happen, right?
why wouldn't it?

I mean, what about the modern GOP right now tells you they wouldn't vote to not certify the results of swings states that Trump lost?

To me, the only reason it wouldn't happen is that the end result is fundamentally the same -- a Democratic president. But now imagine that Republicans take the House!
 

Aaron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,266
why wouldn't it?

I mean, what about the modern GOP right now tells you they wouldn't vote to not certify the results of swings states that Trump lost?

To me, the only reason it wouldn't happen is that the end result is fundamentally the same -- a Democratic president. But now imagine that Republicans take the House!
On paper it's probably easier to win the presidency while losing both houses of Congress, but I don't know, the House doesn't seem to move much in presidential years.
 

SpitztheGreat

Member
May 16, 2019
1,319
yep. If Biden wins in Iowa he will cruise to the nomination, even if he loses NH on the way there.
I'm not sure that's absolutely accurate. If he wins decisively, ok, but if he only wins a plurality, and Warren/Bernie come in a competitive 2nd and take a good number of delegates I think the narrative shifts to this being a competitive race.

I know that we live this stuff every day guys, but there's a long time to go. Most (Iowan) voters won't even begin to tune in to this shit until November or December since the Caucus is in early February.
 

Sheepinator

Member
Jul 25, 2018
7,108
I see the Bankrupter in Chief today calling for not just ZIRP but also NIRP (negative rates). Not content with destroying the US economy he wants to burn down the whole world.

Why in the f*** would the "greatest economy ever" need interest rates lower than emergency oh-shit-the-economy-is-collapsing levels? And for good measure, he insults the intelligence of the Fed members who know 10,000x as much about this stuff than he ever did.
 

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,436
Sadly, Buttigieg and Harris supporters liking Warren is only going to matter if Warren is able to win any of the first 4 states. Otherwise the race is going to move further away from her, if there is a race at all.
This doesn't make any sense. If Harris or Buttigieg don't perform well enough in the early states to continue, which it's looking more and more like they won't, then she first, and Biden second, benefit most from them dropping out.

The problem for her is more that Sanders is unlikely to drop out after the first contests, even though he picks up the least support from other dropouts.

Biden isn't dropping out that early, and neither is Warren, so being their second choice is relatively pointless.
YouGov has been more bullish on Warren than most other pollsters, so while I'm happy to see her pull into a tie I'm not exactly doing cartwheels.
YouGov and Morning Consult can cancel each other out lol.
 

Arm Van Dam

Member
Mar 30, 2019
2,703
Illinois
I know it's Axios, but here some names for National Security Advisor have been floated around

  • Major General Ricky Waddell, former Deputy NSA and assistant to JSC Chair Joseph Dunford
  • Stephen Biegun, US Special Representative to North Korea, former Bush NSC exec secetary under Condi Rice, hired by McCain campaign to literally tutor Palin on foreign policy (Game Change book and movie goes into this), staffed for Helms and Frist, did some lobbying work for Ford
  • Brian Hook, US Special Representative for Iran (appointed after Trump ripped up JCPOA), Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs for Bush admin
  • Keith Kellogg, Pence's National Security Advisor and was acting NSA when Flynn got shitcanned
 

Kai Dracon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,784
Rita Repulsa's Moon Palace
What is it going to take for Democrats to stop trusting these fucking people?
Democrats are timid and cower in terror at the prospect of Republicans saying bad things about them.

Democrats reason if they distrust Republicans and didn't attend the ceremony, Republicans would be on Fox News the next day talking about how Democrats disrespected 9/11 because they were all commie traitors.

Meanwhile Republicans win again while Democrats worry about what GOP voters think of them.
 

BWoog

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,529
I know it's Axios, but here some names for National Security Advisor have been floated around

  • Major General Ricky Waddell, former Deputy NSA and assistant to JSC Chair Joseph Dunford
  • Stephen Biegun, US Special Representative to North Korea, former Bush NSC exec secetary under Condi Rice, hired by McCain campaign to literally tutor Palin on foreign policy (Game Change book and movie goes into this), staffed for Helms and Frist, did some lobbying work for Ford
  • Brian Hook, US Special Representative for Iran (appointed after Trump ripped up JCPOA), Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs for Bush admin
  • Keith Kellogg, Pence's National Security Advisor and was acting NSA when Flynn got shitcanned
All better than Bolton but I still expect Trump to pick Gorka or Cheney or some shit.
 

Aaron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,266
This doesn't make any sense. If Harris or Buttigieg don't perform well enough in the early states to continue, which it's looking more and more like they won't, then she first, and Biden second, benefit most from them dropping out.

The problem for her is more that Sanders is unlikely to drop out after the first contests, even though he picks up the least support from other dropouts.

Biden isn't dropping out that early, and neither is Warren, so being their second choice is relatively pointless.
I remain slightly hopeful that Sanders will drop out if he realizes it's realistically between Biden and Warren - realistically I would assume this would happen after a drubbing on Super Tuesday.

But perhaps that is misplaced. Still, the reason he stuck it out in 2016 is because there was no viable alternative to Clinton if he withdrew. That's not a problem with Biden vs. Warren (who he likes, and allegedly would have deferred to in 2016 if she had run).
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,320
Is this really an issue of Dems being too trusting? They were going to a 9/11 ceremony. There were no votes scheduled for that time. Are they supposed to fucking handcuff themselves to the chamber floor 24/7 to prevent the GOP from launching a surprise vote when no vote is scheduled to happen?

It's crazy to me that you can even vote to override a veto with so much of the legislature missing.

The "Dems will NEVER learn" shit in this thread is sometimes so obnoxious. If McConnell bludgeoned Chuck Schumer in his sleep, it would be Schumer's fault for not wearing a helmet to bed.
 

AnotherNils

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,762
There has to be a reason the NC GOP is as bad as it is. Somewhere they have a Newt Gingrich that started them on this path of absolute trash.
 

Aaron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,266
Is this really an issue of Dems being too trusting? They were going to a 9/11 ceremony. There were no votes scheduled for that time. Are they supposed to fucking handcuff themselves to the chamber floor 24/7 to prevent the GOP from launching a surprise vote when no vote is scheduled to happen?

It's crazy to me that you can even vote to override a veto with so much of the legislature missing.

The "Dems will NEVER learn" shit in this thread is sometimes so obnoxious. If McConnell bludgeoned Chuck Schumer in his sleep, it would be Schumer's fault for not wearing a helmet to bed.
High five. What the Republicans did here was especially despicable. Focus on that, not the Democrats being too naive or whatever.

There has to be a reason the NC GOP is as bad as it is. Somewhere they have a Newt Gingrich that started them on this path of absolute trash.
North Carolina is interesting because Democrats (or perhaps more accurately, Dixiecrats) had a death grip on the politics there for a while thanks to rural whites voting red federally but splitting their ticket for state and local races. So naturally, when Republicans finally won control of the legislature in 2010 (followed by the governorship in 2012), they were going to do their damnedest to hang onto power.

But the Tea Party-driven backlash in 2010 coincided with North Carolina's shift to the left, largely thanks to new northern transplants who kept their Democratic-voting habits when they moved. North Carolina voted for Obama in 2008, the first time they'd voted for the Democratic presidential nominee since Carter. It went red in 2012 and 2016 of course, but close enough to generally be regarded as an R-tilting swing state rather than a safe red one. Meanwhile, the Democrats who are being elected now are significantly more liberal than the good ol' boys Dixiecrat coalition produced in the past.

So Republicans' turn at the wheel has been oddly fleeting, and they're exceptionally desperate to hold onto that power. Unlike Midwestern states (Wisconsin in particular, but also Michigan and Pennsylvania), where there's a tug-and-pull that will ultimately likely favor the Republicans, the demographic shifts in North Carolina are going to make it unwinnable for them eventually, meaning they'll have only been top dog for a couple years at best. Take a look at their Supreme Court races for example - the legislature attempted to make them even more nakedly partisan than they already were, and that left them with a 6-1 Democratic majority on the court. Whoops!

There's a similar thing going on in Virginia, where Republicans' return to power ultimately lasted about two years. The Democrats held the State Senate for the first half of McDonnell's term, and even then the Republican gain of the chamber has a major asterisk on it - they only brought it down to a tie in the 2011 elections, and Cuccinelli took a bizarrely limited approach with the Lieutenant Governor's authority over tiebreakers. The Congressional map they got to gerrymander? 7-4 Democratic, as of last year's elections. The State House map? Dismantled by the court. They have nothing. It's pretty remarkable, given that Obama's win there in 2008 was the first time they had gone blue since Lyndon Johnson.
 
Last edited:

shinra-bansho

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,436
I remain slightly hopeful that Sanders will drop out if he realizes it's realistically between Biden and Warren - realistically I would assume this would happen after a drubbing on Super Tuesday.

But perhaps that is misplaced. Still, the reason he stuck it out in 2016 is because there was no viable alternative to Clinton if he withdrew. That's not a problem with Biden vs. Warren (who he likes, and allegedly would have deferred to in 2016 if she had run).


That was before he got a taste of the the adulation and drunk his own Kool aid.
Running for President is like a drug.
 

Blader

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,320
I'm not sure that's absolutely accurate. If he wins decisively, ok, but if he only wins a plurality, and Warren/Bernie come in a competitive 2nd and take a good number of delegates I think the narrative shifts to this being a competitive race.

I know that we live this stuff every day guys, but there's a long time to go. Most (Iowan) voters won't even begin to tune in to this shit until November or December since the Caucus is in early February.
Well I'm not saying Biden has it stitched up NOW, but winning Iowa would reinforce his electability argument (deservedly) and he could that ride through SC, NV, and a lot of those Super Tuesday states.

The only way Biden does not win the nomination is if his African American voter support plummets, and the only real way anyone else will be able to put a big enough dent in that is by beating Biden and doing it as early as possible -- meaning Iowa AND New Hampshire. If we get to South Carolina and Biden has 1-2 wins under his belt already, there will be no reason for his strongest supporters to ditch him then, because the whole thesis of their support for him and his argument for his campaign will have been proven right.
 

Aaron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,266


That was before he got a taste of the the adulation and drunk his own Kool aid.
Running for President is like a drug.
True. We'll see though. Maybe Warren can cut a behind-the-scenes deal with him for a post-Super Tuesday endorsement. Or he rides it out to the convention and ruins everything.

Yeah, that second one is probably likelier.
 

Pooh

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,768
The Hundred Acre Wood
Is this really an issue of Dems being too trusting? They were going to a 9/11 ceremony. There were no votes scheduled for that time. Are they supposed to fucking handcuff themselves to the chamber floor 24/7 to prevent the GOP from launching a surprise vote when no vote is scheduled to happen?

It's crazy to me that you can even vote to override a veto with so much of the legislature missing.

The "Dems will NEVER learn" shit in this thread is sometimes so obnoxious. If McConnell bludgeoned Chuck Schumer in his sleep, it would be Schumer's fault for not wearing a helmet to bed.
It's because "fool me 135753 times, shame on me."

Liberal frustration with Dems will only continue because as voters we did what we could to get them in power and they still get clowned on by a GOP that has changed the game while Dems play by the rules of the old one.
 

Aaron

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,266
I thought they were too smart to appeal this to the Supreme Court (whose composition would almost ensure them a rawer deal than what they're getting now), but I guess not.

The amazing thing is that the nonpartisan maps don't even rig it for the Democrats, it just means the Republicans can't rig themselves into power. That's what they're mad about! Not the possibility that the Democrats are cheating, but the possibility that they can't.

Republicans only win when they cheat. That is it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.