2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

[GiddyUp]

But they can impact who can vote, state reps/people can put people from certain districts or areas in a forced house lockdown due to COVID and "fear of riots"? Democratic-leaning areas will be under lockdown while republicans can roam free.

No, that won't happen.

 

[WI_Red]

No, that won't happen.

Agreed. I think what we have seen in Kentucky and Georgia is the model they will follow along with fighting mail in ballots. As @Organic Potatoes said above, it is going to be very hard to move the election as Federal Law stipulates the EC must meet on Dec 19th. Plus, the election clause of the constitution makes it pretty plain that states get to determine the how, where, and when elections take place for senate/house, so unless they try to decouple the elections from one another I do not think you are going to see any real move to change election dates. This goes double for stopping mail in voting. I don't see how Trump stops them as the only way the federal government can interfere is with legislation, and there is no way the house is going to go along. My only worry is the courts, especially since McTurttle has spent the last 4 years packing them.

 

[nimic]

They can't and won't since it would infuriate the public. What they can and will do however, is play a nasty voter suppression game by attempting to block voting by mail and in the process delegitimize the final result among his base (unless of course he wins, at which point he will boast how well he did in the face of all the adversity).

Right. There are two possible Trump responses after the election:

a) They committed voter fraud, and that's why I lost.
b) They committed voter fraud, but I won anyway.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

Agreed. I think what we have seen in Kentucky and Georgia is the model they will follow along with fighting mail in ballots. As @Organic Potatoes said above, it is going to be very hard to move the election as Federal Law stipulates the EC must meet on Dec 19th. Plus, the election clause of the constitution makes it pretty plain that states get to determine the how, where, and when elections take place for senate/house, so unless they try to decouple the elections from one another I do not think you are going to see any real move to change election dates. This goes double for stopping mail in voting. I don't see how Trump stops them as the only way the federal government can interfere is with legislation, and there is no way the house is going to go along. My only worry is the courts, especially since McTurttle has spent the last 4 years packing them.

And if they try to tie up the ‘disputed‘ results in the Courts, Pelosi becomes President on Jan 20th. That won‘t happen, as Roberts would eventually do the right thing and get a 5-4 ruling to restore order. Also, Gorsuch is a stickler on the letter of the law and could break rank again.

This is all just wild worst-case scenario guessing, of course.

 

[WI_Red]

And if they try to tie up the ‘disputed‘ results in the Courts, Pelosi becomes President on Jan 20th. That won‘t happen, as Roberts would eventually do the right thing and get a 5-4 ruling to restore order. Also, Gorsuch is a stickler on the letter of the law and could break rank again.

This is all just wild worst-case scenario guessing, of course.

There would be something so cathartic about seeing Trump kicking and screaming "Fake New Witchhunt!" as US Secret Service dragged him from the White House on Jan 20th while Biden look on bemused.

 

[Raoul]

Right. There are two possible Trump responses after the election:

a) They committed voter fraud, and that's why I lost.
b) They committed voter fraud, but I won anyway.

Probably spot on. A third possibility is that Trump drops out in the face of an imminent Biden landslide, and walks away never having actually "lost".

 

[Revan]

Idk, I think a Trump Democrat is a bit too far for me so it's probably for the best if McGrath loses regardless of her ability to beat Moscow Mitch. Would cause a new set of problems down the line.

Honestly, I think that Mitch is even worse than Trump. Trump has caused a lot of damage with his stupidity and egocentrism, but Mitch is actually very competent at his job. Removing him from the office (with whatever means) is as important as removing Trump, so as I said I would have taken a 'Trump Democrat' (whatever it means) to see the gollum get retired.

Don't get me wrong, I am far from a fan of McGrath and have been extremely underwhelmed any time I read about her. But she was doing very well in the polls, and a more left-wing candidate will struggle to defeat Mitch in a very red state. Of course, McConnell might have won anyway, in fact he was the favorite to win against McGrath too.

 

[Raoul]

Matt Gaetz's opponent

 

[Revan]

Does Trump actually want to win reelection?

He is now on random mode, doing random moves that make no sense.

I cannot see Roberts voting for this, probably Gorsuch and Alito too. Obamacare has already survived twice the Supreme Court.

 

[WPMUFC]

Honestly, I think that Mitch is even worse than Trump. Trump has caused a lot of damage with his stupidity and egocentrism, but Mitch is actually very competent at his job. Removing him from the office (with whatever means) is as important as removing Trump, so as I said I would have taken a 'Trump Democrat' (whatever it means) to see the gollum get retired.

Don't get me wrong, I am far from a fan of McGrath and have been extremely underwhelmed any time I read about her. But she was doing very well in the polls, and a more left-wing candidate will struggle to defeat Mitch in a very red state. Of course, McConnell might have won anyway, in fact he was the favorite to win against McGrath too.

she said one of the reasons to remove mitch was that he was hampering Trump's full agenda and that she'd vote to confirm Kavanaugh. So she's happy with trump's authoritarianism and was more than happy to turn the supreme court conservative.
Can you let me know where's the threshold point to when even moderate dems will say "they aren't the right candidate"??? Just putting a (D) in kentucky, only to pass the same legislation Mitch does is bonkers. If a democrat has to debase themselves so much, why not just throw support and money to a "moderate" republican?

 

[Revan]

she said one of the reasons to remove mitch was that he was hampering Trump's full agenda and that she'd vote to confirm Kavanaugh. So she's happy with trump's authoritarianism and was more than happy to turn the supreme court conservative.
Can you let me know where's the threshold point to when even moderate dems will say "they aren't the right candidate"??? Just putting a (D) in kentucky, only to pass the same legislation Mitch does is bonkers. If a democrat has to debase themselves so much, why not just throw support and money to a "moderate" republican?

But that is not really the case though. Even a right-wing Democrat is still gonna vote much more left-wing policies than an average Republican, let alone Mitch. For example, Manchin is a Republican in all by name, but still sticks with Democrats most of the time, and the alternative (unless it is someone like Collins/Murkowski) is far worse.

I am hardly a fan of McGrath, but she would have been a better choice than an average Republican, let alone fecking McConnell. I think that she said a lot of bullshit to appeal to Republicans there (McConnell actually has an extremely low rating even with Republicans), but it is not true to say that she would pass the same legislation as Mitch.

 

[GiddyUp]

she said one of the reasons to remove mitch was that he was hampering Trump's full agenda and that she'd vote to confirm Kavanaugh. So she's happy with trump's authoritarianism and was more than happy to turn the supreme court conservative.
Can you let me know where's the threshold point to when even moderate dems will say "they aren't the right candidate"??? Just putting a (D) in kentucky, only to pass the same legislation Mitch does is bonkers. If a democrat has to debase themselves so much, why not just throw support and money to a "moderate" republican?

I hear you bud, under normal circumstances never but this is Mitch McConnell we are talking about. McGrath would just be a Joe Manchin with balls until her seat is taken by a Republican. You got to play the long game though and any seat kept out of Republican claws is a win

 

[Florida Man]

she said one of the reasons to remove mitch was that he was hampering Trump's full agenda and that she'd vote to confirm Kavanaugh. So she's happy with trump's authoritarianism and was more than happy to turn the supreme court conservative.
Can you let me know where's the threshold point to when even moderate dems will say "they aren't the right candidate"??? Just putting a (D) in kentucky, only to pass the same legislation Mitch does is bonkers. If a democrat has to debase themselves so much, why not just throw support and money to a "moderate" republican?

I heard a theory that she’s in it to give the easy win to a Republican (Mitch). Either way, it’s but another example of why the Democrats are trash.

edit: typo

 

[Revan]

I heard a theory that she’s in it to go e the easy win to a Republican (Mitch). Either way, it’s but another example of why the Democrats are trash.

It makes no sense as a theory. Mitch has been winning the elections in a landslide for ages, and his state is one of the reddest states.

 

[calodo2003]

I heard a theory that she’s in it to go e the easy win to a Republican (Mitch). Either way, it’s but another example of why the Democrats are trash.

Easy win for a Democrat in Kentucky against a fecker that has been an institution there? That’s nonsense.

 

[WPMUFC]

But that is not really the case though. Even a right-wing Democrat is still gonna vote much more left-wing policies than an average Republican, let alone Mitch. For example, Manchin is a Republican in all by name, but still sticks with Democrats most of the time, and the alternative (unless it is someone like Collins/Murkowski) is far worse.

I am hardly a fan of McGrath, but she would have been a better choice than an average Republican, let alone fecking McConnell. I think that she said a lot of bullshit to appeal to Republicans there (McConnell actually has an extremely low rating even with Republicans), but it is not true to say that she would pass the same legislation as Mitch.

interesting you bring up manchin. Considering he voted to confirm Barr. So McGrath and Manchin in the congress would've voted to install Barr to his position, would have worked to support Trump legislation, would have given the supreme court to the conservatives anyway. So basically everything that is wrong with the current administration would have been approved by the likes of McGrath and Manchin, but it's the (D) that matters?

 

[Fosu-Mens]

Forced house lockdown? No, that isn’t possible. They are attempting to restrict voting as per the post above, and they have been working on it for awhile.

No, that won't happen.

They can't and won't since it would infuriate the public. What they can and will do however, is play a nasty voter suppression game by attempting to block voting by mail and in the process delegitimize the final result among his base (unless of course he wins, at which point he will boast how well he did in the face of all the adversity).

I am not saying that they will enforce "lockdowns", but that they can in theory. Extraordinary measures during a pandemic --> shelter in place/stay at home for certain (insert: democratic friendly) areas.

Not that this will be done on a grand scale, nor that it will happen, but it could... Especially with this admin and president seeming to lack common decency and sense.

 

[Beachryan]

Far more likely is suddenly showing an interest in people's safety, and introducing hugely draconian polling measures, which mainly impacts cities which are of course blue. Loads of poll workers are actually retirees, and volunteers. Are they going to risk their lives to do it this time? Should they be? Of course not. So I President Trump have decided no poll workers over 65, for health reasons. That may mean some polling locations are unable to operate, but it's all we can do for the greatest generation.

The GOP will also reduce funding and help with signing up new voters, getting access to ID, or even just physically getting to voting areas (buses etc).

Expect them to also try to get as many police and potentially even army to 'help ensure fair elections' by walking, standing and monitoring places with guns - thus discouraging certain demographics to be comfortable voting.

GOP is now the party of voter suppression, and just like all the other genuinely evil parts of their platform, they execute it with zeal and efficiency. And despite all the polls in June, momentum swings both ways and we all kno this is going to be another election decided on the fringes, so effectively stopping voting in a Milwaukee, or Philadelphia could genuinely swing the whole damn thing, because America's system is so stupid.

 

[Florida Man]

It makes no sense as a theory. Mitch has been winning the elections in a landslide for ages, and his state is one of the reddest states.

Easy win for a Democrat in Kentucky against a fecker that has been an institution there? That’s nonsense.

I think my typo gave my post a different meaning. What I meant is that McGrath is running as a Republican lite, which if you’re a Republican, you’d vote for McConnell anyway. The theory is that she is there to keep a progressive out of the contention and hand the easy win to McConnell.

 

[shamans]

Now it's up to young people to come out and vote. Quit falling for the Biden smear campaigns. Covid19 response + the BLM movement is proof that getting Trump out of the presidency is the most important thing right now. I really hope the young voter turn out is higher for once.

 

[Il Prete Rosso]

Now it's up to young people to come out and vote. Quit falling for the Biden smear campaigns. Covid19 response + the BLM movement is proof that getting Trump out of the presidency is the most important thing right now. I really hope the young voter turn out is higher for once.

I think it would be. In 2016 most of them stayed home because they thought that Hilary was a sure thing.

 

[shamans]

I think it would be. In 2016 most of them stayed home because they thought that Hilary was a sure thing.

Thats my hope as well. That said its an even more embarrassing thing to admit being a trump supporter right now so Im not buying these pollsn just yet. All biden as to do is keep his mouth shut and let Trump implode.

Btw, if after the BLM protests Trump had come out and given a speech that addressed systemic racism, supproted protests and call for police reform he could have locked his next four years. He shot himself in the foot.

 

[Raoul]

I think it would be. In 2016 most of them stayed home because they thought that Hilary was a sure thing.

The advantage Biden has this cycle is that people now have the benefit of hindsight of what kind of President Trump is, which is a powerful motivator to animate people to show up and vote. With Hillary, there was a bit of a lazy expectation that she would win, which wound up suppressing her turnout in various states (which was also affected by the Comey letter).

Since COVID seems to be lingering for another few months at least, it means there will be very little campaigning, so all he has to do is let Trump continue to self-immolate, while the likes of the Lincoln Project and others continue to hammer away at him.

 

[Raoul]

Embarrassing for Harris if true

 

[Florida Man]

Embarrassing for Harris if true

Harris is also former cop, which in the the current climate, is a bad look for a candidate. And yes I understand Biden is not a pro-defund guy. The obvious VP choice is Warren.

 

[bleedred]

Harris is also former cop, which in the the current climate, is a bad look for a candidate. And yes I understand Biden is not a pro-defund guy. The obvious VP choice is Warren.

Wasn't harris the one who grilled Biden on the bussing thingy few months back?

 

[Man of Leisure]

Harris is also former cop, which in the the current climate, is a bad look for a candidate. And yes I understand Biden is not a pro-defund guy. The obvious VP choice is Warren.

Former DA, not a cop. But yah, Warren would be the correct choice methinks.

 

[WPMUFC]

Former DA, not a cop. But yah, Warren would be the correct choice methinks.

Two big flags for me with Harris.

1. The almost psychotic cruelty she displayed in that speech, laughing about threatening to lock up parents for truancy of their kids.
2. That the republican actually ran to the left of her on drug legalisation and she laughed it off at a press conference as some kind of "election ending" stunt by the republican.

I don't like how weak Warren was in the primaries, but by a country mile she is the better fighter and progressive. In fact i think Harris has the same flaws as Klobuchar, people are going to dig into their law histories and find shady shit.

 

[Florida Man]

Wasn't harris the one who grilled Biden on the bussing thingy few months back?

Yes that was her, but she recently walked it back by claiming it was just a show for the debate or something like that, which I guess has truth to it. These people really do treat politics like theater (See Pelosi’s recent cultural appropriation).

Former DA, not a cop. But yah, Warren would be the correct choice methinks.

Yeah specifically DA. But as far as I’m concerned, that’s cop-like enough. Then as already mentioned, she has a super controversial record as DA mainly with the drug laws and other certain comments. Plus she’s so obviously fake. Warren is too in my opinion but she still gives us the perception of genuineness.

 

[Beachryan]

Warren's policies are way more progressive, and would benefit minorities more than Harris. Hopefully it's that simple.

At least both are experienced and ready to govern day 1, which is a very real concern for a Biden running mate. Should be for Trump too of course, god imagine a Pence presidency!

 

[Organic Potatoes]

Supposedly Rice has made it to this stage of the vetting process, so she is at least a back-up plan if not actual contender for the role.

I think if Warren is part of Biden’s White House, it will be as Sec. of the Treasury. Also if Kamala doesn’t get picked because it doesn’t look like she will help get votes, she could get the AG gig.

 

[Drifter]

Warren as Treasury secretary may be a better fit. Not surprised black voters are not really backing Harris, they never really backed her in the primaries. Her track record as a lawyer as come back to haunt her.

 

[Pexbo]

I think there will be a lot of calls for Kamala Harris to be Biden’s Attorney General which would be worse in some respects than if she was his Veep as the main question marks that hang over her would be much more of a concern as AG. One positive is that I think she would be laser focused in bringing Trump, Barr and the rest of the crooks in the Mueller report to account.

 

[Wolverine]

Logs on to twitter and first thing I see is Trump praising supporters, the first of whom shouts "white power"

 

[Raoul]

I think there will be a lot of calls for Kamala Harris to be Biden’s Attorney General which would be worse in some respects than if she was his Veep as the main question marks that hang over her would be much more of a concern as AG. One positive is that I think she would be laser focused in bringing Trump, Barr and the rest of the crooks in the Mueller report to account.

Sally Yates as AG and Preet Bhahara at the FBI would be my picks. They would have to then disentangle the mess and potential crimes over the preceding four years.

 

[Pexbo]

Sally Yates as AG and Preet Bhahara at the FBI would be my picks. They would have then disentangle the mess and potential crimes over the preceding four years.

Preet would be a fantastic pick.

 

[Revan]

Warren is much better than Harris, but her senate seat would go to a Republican considering that MA has a GOP governor. It is paramount for the Democrats to win the Senate too and now that looks actually likely.

Which leaves Harris as the main VP choice.

 

[Raoul]

Warren is much better than Harris, but her senate seat would go to a Republican considering that MA has a GOP governor. It is paramount for the Democrats to win the Senate too and now that looks actually likely.

Which leaves Harris as the main VP choice.

Safe to say that if Biden chooses Warren - it will be because he genuinely likes her, feels he can work with her, and is willing to deal with the backlash of not picking a non-white woman - especially given the fact that the balance of the Senate could be at play.

 

[Revan]

Safe to say that if Biden chooses Warren - it will be because he genuinely likes her, feels he can work with her, and is willing to deal with the backlash of not picking a non-white woman - especially given the fact that the balance of the Senate could be at play.

Do you know when the seat goes in election if Warren becomes VP? If it is a few months, it might be ok, but longer than that and it would be a disaster move. Getting the senate is as important as getting the presidency IMO.

 

[GiddyUp]

Sally Yates as AG and Preet Bhahara at the FBI would be my picks. They would have to then disentangle the mess and potential crimes over the preceding four years.

Doesn't Christopher Ray have a ten year appointment?