-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
2020.
fredrancour
Member
Wow that's horrible ahaha.
Do we have any more manchins lying around to throw at that race?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I'm really high on Gilibrand if she can successfully cover her past as a conservative
IggyChooChoo
Member
I don't know why Steve Beshear couldn't run. He's 73 but that's two years younger than Mitch. Or maybe his kid the Attorney General could run, although he's probably running for governor in 2019 which might complicate a 2020 run.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I love Gillibrand. I like Harris. I think both of them could be president some day.
I have serious doubts either one can overcome the likeability of Biden and Sanders next election. I feel like the public is going to want a trusted, older figure to get things back on track.
Did you ever have a grandpa that comforted you and shared wisdom? That's kind of like where I feel we will be as a nation at that point.
I have serious doubts either one can overcome the likeability of Biden and Sanders next election. I feel like the public is going to want a trusted, older figure to get things back on track.
Did you ever have a grandpa that comforted you and shared wisdom? That's kind of like where I feel we will be as a nation at that point.
Wow! At this rate, Trump could add almost 3,800 coal jobs by the end of 2020!
I mean, assuming he stays in office that long.
balladofwindfishes
Member
SC justices getting into politics (more than used to be accepted, anyway) seems like the natural evolution of our process at this point. It'll likely be the norm in a decade or so.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Interesting to see Booker and Warren start to break away - it's early yet (obviously), but maybe that's a sign of growing name recognition. Trump has always put up more or less the same numbers in PPP's 2020 matchups, with the Democrat's lead tied directly to their name recognition.
Generic ballot numbers are good too! While gerrymandering makes it hard to say for sure, I'd like to think an 11-point lead would be enough. But I'm guessing the same issues with their previous gaudy lead for Democrats persist here - all of the Clinton voters are already on board, but the Trump voters are playing coy and will likely just vote Republican like always. Still, if the special elections have any predicative value that's pretty much in line with what we've been seeing.
Just more reason why it's time to abandon our false norm of pretending SCOTUS is impartially interpreting the Constitution, understand them as a partisan governing body, and act accordingly.
KirbYuuYuu
Member
Randolph Freelander
Member
Meanwhile, the Republican mayoral candidate in Raleigh
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article175869611.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article175869611.html
It's a debatable question, but they are certainly not generally understood as one.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Meanwhile, the Republican mayoral candidate in Raleigh
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article175869611.html
.
balladofwindfishes
Member
That's not racist AT ALL
No way
The "men" in quotes is like the cherry on top. I'm surprised she didn't call "them" savages.
No way
The "men" in quotes is like the cherry on top. I'm surprised she didn't call "them" savages.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Sigh. I'm so tired of what modern evangelicalism has become. I wish people were smart enough to realize it is so far removed from actual Christianity.
It could probably be argued that most versions have always been more about people adopting their personal beliefs and politics to Christianity rather than the opposite.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Agreed.
As for those presidential polls:
How often have these polls been "correct" this long before an election? As in, have they actually been good predictors of future candidates? Seems so, so far away for these to be of use.
Thomas' wife is the head of a conservative lobbying group.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
Would he beat Trump? Yea, no doubt in my mind. But it's a moot point because he wouldn't beat Hillary in a primary. Even if his son hadn't died and he ran...we'd still have President Trump right now.
I think Biden could beat Trump in 2020. I have serious doubts he'd have done it last year, even assuming he got through the primary. I know he's likable and appealing to working-class whites in a way that Hillary wasn't. I just don't see how he gets those Obama-Trump voters to break his way purely on charisma. Those people went the other way last year as a reaction to the last eight years and an impulse for change, so how does re-upping on the same vice president for another four years satisfy that impulse?
Trump and Biden are both charismatic, appealing guys for that bloc of voters. The difference between them is that Biden extends the Obama administration four more years and Trump is a complete break in the other direction. So for the people in that group who wanted change, I can't see why they'd go for Biden over Trump.
Yeah. It's a case where Hillary would win due to winning areas that never really help win in a general election.
Wyoming is just a toxic, F-ed up mess. (Yes, I currently live there.)
Yep.
As for the SCOTUS comment - I think it became much more of a legislative and governing body when Congress stopped actually doing their jobs and it turned into Executive Orders and then challenging the constitutionality of it. That said, you probably lose abortion rights and gay marriage very quickly if you explicitly make them partisan.
Yep.
As for the SCOTUS comment - I think it became much more of a legislative and governing body when Congress stopped actually doing their jobs and it turned into Executive Orders and then challenging the constitutionality of it. That said, you probably lose abortion rights and gay marriage very quickly if you explicitly make them partisan.
Yeah. SCOTUS is basically a legislative and governing body where parties hope to pick judges that will take their side on laws. It really needs some sort of revamp since 2-3 Dem judges dying would suddenly mean a Republican majority for the next 40-50 years.
4 Democrats, 4 Republicans, 1 Independent?
Cesare Borgia
Banned
He wouldn't have to win them all though. As Obama said, a lot of this boils down to losing by 20 in certain rural districts rather than losing by 50. Showing up and meeting with those voters, letting them see you....matters. At least, if you're a decent politician. Biden would have done that and been fine.
Clinton lost MI by less than 10k votes. A lot of that margin was lost from democrats simply not showing up in strongholds (Wayne, Washtenaw, etc), but that margin also includes voters who may have voted for Clinton if she asked for their vote.
How would you decide if someone's independent or not? If not for that it'd be a good idea.
balladofwindfishes
Member
That one independent would basically rule the court.
whyamihere
Banned
phrasing.
benicillin
Banned
No, I think we just need way more people on the court in general. 4-4-1 basically creates yet another scenario where the only vote that really matter is the I because everyone else votes on party lines.
Meanwhile, the Republican mayoral candidate in Raleigh
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article175869611.html
Did he just I cant even wow help
people really need to clarify which Sanders they're talking about!
Aaron Strife
Banned
They have, but you have to wonder sometimes how that translates to public awareness.
Biden was Vice President and Sanders just ran a very publicized presidential campaign, one where he got more primary votes than the GOP winner. They have universal name recognition and yet Trump does no worse against them than he does against the other Democrats - Biden and Sanders just do better than the lesser known Democrats.
"If you have name recognition, are you doing better than a hypothetical Clinton re-do" is a good way to take this I think. Michelle, Sanders, Biden all pass that test, Warren/Booker don't. Harris/Gillibrand really aren't well-known.
The overall lesson here is "vote for the person who you think will do the best job", imo.
Worse case I kinda rather that than Republicans with a 6-3 because they got lucky with death or winning the Presidency at the right time.
Or increasing the SC number and term limits.
Yep.
As for the SCOTUS comment - I think it became much more of a legislative and governing body when Congress stopped actually doing their jobs and it turned into Executive Orders and then challenging the constitutionality of it. That said, you probably lose abortion rights and gay marriage very quickly if you explicitly make them partisan.
I think you're utterly wrong to suggest that abortion rights and gay marriage are protected by stare decisis. They're protected by social norms.
Beer Monkey
Member
WaPo: Twitter finds hundreds of accounts tied to Russian operatives
Uh, no shit?
Ever see a troll post get 2500 likes and 2500 shares in one minute? I have.
Uh, no shit?
Ever see a troll post get 2500 likes and 2500 shares in one minute? I have.
whyamihere
Banned
it's Sarah.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
if we lose the court in trumps term, we need to threaten packing.
Basically. Court doesn't want to open that can of worms because either would have huge and far-reaching implications and hurt a lot of people.
I feel like a good way to immunize the court from partisanship would be to first "reset" the court: majority party gets to pick 4 justices, minority party gets to pick 4 justices, president gets to pick one to be the chief justice. They can draw from the current ranks if they wish.
After that point, then each newly elected president gets to pick one supreme court justice and the most senior justice at the time must resign (based on years served and age as a tiebreaker). If a judge retires midway through a term, they get to pick their replacement from the ranks of appeals court justices. If a judge dies or is rendered effectively non-functioning midway through a term, then a vote of 6 of the remaining 8 justices may select a replacement from among the appeals court justices.
Appeals court justices are picked by the President but can be 2/3rds vetoed by the senate.
District court justices are selected by a consensus choice of both senators from that state.
So you get an array of different voices at each level of the process that favors scheduled turnover and ideological stability at the Supreme Court level (like Sandra Day O'Connor who retired while living could have hand-picked her successor instead of us ending up with Alito, but when Scalia died, it would've been up to 6 of the 8 to pick his replacement.)
You could still play political games with that, but they'd have good consequences, like encouraging justices to retire before getting so old that death is a risk, because they can retire knowing that their successor of choice will follow them, helping people like Ginsberg and Kennedy get out while making sure they get someone they approve of in behind them.
Oppo Droppo hour has become "Social Media/Russia" hour the last two weeks.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked