Yea, Moore v Harper is the one I was thinking of, cheers.
Could be very serious implications with that one, and if the last election was done again, Trump may well have had more leverage and less accountability to ensure his preferred electors gave him the result he wanted.
Maybe the Supreme Court should just pass a law debarring Democrats from office and be done with it.
I think there’s a good case to be made for the Democrats to expand the Supreme Court. Some of the justices were appointed by Republicans in spurious circumstances, and there is a sense in which the court is politicized more than ever before.
A reasonable way to dilute the harmful effects is to add more justices.
Biden’s already said he won’t do it. Heaven forbid that they run the risk of accusations of court packing.
There is an official term for a system of government where elections are held but their results are essentially pre-determined. This is what we’re heading towards and the prospects for it are very very real. We’re being told by one party exactly what they want to do and why, and people speaking out about it are, predictibly, being told their are being hysterical and by talking about it are no better than the people who tried to cheat, told us they are going to try to cheat again, and have given us the details of what they’re going to do in the efforts to cheat.
In addition to the issues Red laid out, the more fundamental things are the things State elected Secretary of States can do is create rules that weight very heavily who gets to cast a vote and whose gets counted (not always the same thing). There are already practices in play to fuck with this in small margins that in the right circumstances can be impactful. What is changing is the overall environment of how acceptable this form of fuckery is, which allows for the scope of it to expand. If that happens the races become handicapped to a point that simply going out and voting is not enough to overcome it. Critical in that is an Obama era Supreme Court decision that gutted the Voting Right Acts that limited what overt fuckery could be done with running elections and the signaling the court is giving that they are now willing for this to pushed even further.
Yep. I think there’s a sense in which the Democrats are playing by the Queensbury rules but it’s an MMA fight.
To blend forums for a second, it’s a bit like watching our team win the fair play award, and being robbed by teams willing to do more of the dark arts.
I think this is true except I dont think it factors in to the way people make their decisions on this. As you’ve pointed out, making predictions this far out is a fools game. Ignoring reelection, I think Biden and Hillary in 2016 are the only Dem Nominees in my lifetime who started the process as a front runner. Howver, I definitely wouldnt consider a front runner, but I am seeing with him a certain style that is rare but when it exists tends to charm the right group of people in the Dem party to make it a viable run.
I think exploring a run would not be a bad step for Warnock, but I don’t think he has the base in the party to sustain a campaign - especially if Abrams is also considering it. The lack of experience isn’t an absolute killer, but along with it goes a fairly weak network in other regions. I don’t think Warnock would have much of a showing before South Carolina, at which point the momentum effect would be damaging.
Putting himself in the conversation might benefit his profile significantly, and position him for a run in 2028 - at which point he would presumably be a two-term US Senator, have higher national profile, and probably some more serious committee assignments that extend his profile into other regions.
It will be interesting to see what they decide about the schedule and whether any outside candidate will wait to see how that aligns with their presumed strengths before declaring. For instance, if we’re looking for a state with a higher % of black voters with large urban areas to replace Iowa as the first and Georgia is selected…
On the flip side, that could be disastrous for some candidates. A weaker than expected showing in Georgia would end an Abrams or Warnock candidacy, with the key idea being ‘expected’. They would be on the defensive from the beginning. Bill Clinton had the luxury of exceeding modest expectations more or less until Super Tuesday, by which time the enthusiasm generated by the perception of momentum built a much stronger and broader campaign.
A rock or The Rock?
What would be more appealing to centrist voters?
Most people who take an interest in this thread probably know who Rachel Maddow is and are familiar with the recent discussion over her new contract that has allowed her to step away from TV to enable her to do other things. Well, the first of those has dropped and its fucking outstanding
This is the retelling of the partnership between the literal Nazi party of Hitler and elements of fascist sympathizers who existed in US government at the time. The obvious point being made that talking about fascism is not a scare tactic, but part of our history with a direct through line to today.
It looks like they are trickling out the episodes so only 2 are available so far, but this is a great conversation providing background on the story and why she has decided to tell it
To my knowledge, the post of VP is a rather symbolic one with little or no executive powers. So how does a VP raise/lower his/her political capital?
I consider myself a centrist voter and I would strongly consider a rock over any of the potential candidates I’ve seen suggested in the media so far…. Have absolutely no clue what The Rocks politics or capabilities (beyond making generally entertaining movies) are. But am always befuddled that the idea the having zero experience is considered a positive qualification for the most important job in the country
It’s a ludicrous idea, but I thought after the Republicans went with an actor and a reality tv show host, why not beat them with their own weapons? No prior experience means no baggage too. People know him, he’s popular, he’s not a woman, but women like him, checks all the boxes needed apparently. I don’t get the impression most voters are interested in substance anyway
There are always people like him around the edges of presidential politics. A few cycles ago, either 08 or 12, one of the front runners for the GOP was a guy from Law and Order. He had been a Senator in the past before returning to acting, but was no longer in politics nor was he declared. He got so much attention that he eventually felt compelled to declare and then was shown to be completely out of depth and dropped out after just a couple of states.
There is always interest from the media in finding these sorts of characters, and prop them up if they show any interest at all. When occasionally one them goes on to actually be viable it always still feels like a surprise making it seem like we’re bad at identifying what about these non-politician stars it is that appeals to people (hint, its usually the racism).
I`m sure everyone on here will be contributing to his getfucked page.
Really cheered up my day that. Then we scored 7. Lovely
I don’t know how these things work, but there’s no way he has that money, and there’s no way the Sandy Hook parents will receive that amount.
But hopefully they receive as much as possible, and it bankrupts that nasty man.