|
America literally Brexited in 1776, how is that even a question.
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
haveblue posted:The American Brexit happened in 1860. Nah they didn't vote for that. Which is what I meant, basically. Dumb Parliament putting out a referendum they want to lose but getting sabotaged by disenfranchised and racist white people sticking it to the man. Not in the literal separatist sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:Clinton +12 in Virginia Terry McAuliffe 2020!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don't even want to imagine what an American Brexit would look like. Not even "Texas leaves the Union," but probably something much more comically evil like "repeal the 13th Amendment." I could definitely see a push to repeal the 14th Amendment if the Republican party keeps going down its current path. Republicans are already super hostile to the idea of jus soli and I could see them trying to make the case that the 14th Amendment is "too loosely worded" and as a result frequently "abused" by activist judges and therefore the whole thing needs to go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Pakled posted:I could definitely see a push to repeal the 14th Amendment if the Republican party keeps going down its current path. Republicans are already super hostile to the idea of jus soli and I could see them trying to make the case that the 14th Amendment is "too loosely worded" and as a result frequently "abused" by activist judges and therefore the whole thing needs to go. They'd probably get uncomfortably close if they had good PR, your average older white American would be so down, and everyone else probably doesn't have the time or motivation to figure out what the 14th actually is because there's a bunch of words about the Civil War in it that aren't relevant anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/762299567354314752 Virginia's no surprise, but I'm more curious about how close it is in Nevada. Obama won the state twice, and I would've expected the hispanic population would help boost Hillary to at least 5 - 10 points. It's not a lot of electoral votes, but I find any state that Obama won in 2012 that Hillary can't hold onto is worrisome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
So how many points would Hillary have to win by in order to gain control of Congress?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:This shouldn't be surprising at all. The DC suburbs are solidly democrat. So is Richmond and Chesapeake. Also, Charlottesville. Home of the Khans and the University of Virginia*. *Wahoowa!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
Gort posted:So how many points would Hillary have to win by in order to gain control of Congress? It doesn't work like that. Congressional seats are determined by districts written up by mostly Republican State governments to stay Republican. If Hillary wins super hard the Dems might pick up a few more seats because of downticket coattails but the House is staying Republican for the foreseeable future and even if we retook the House it'd just go Republican again in two years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Ballz posted:Virginia's no surprise, but I'm more curious about how close it is in Nevada. Obama won the state twice, and I would've expected the hispanic population would help boost Hillary to at least 5 - 10 points. Republican support in Nevada relies less on college educated whites than in VA. They're abandoning Trump in droves, but there are just fewer of them in NV.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Ballz posted:Virginia's no surprise, but I'm more curious about how close it is in Nevada. Obama won the state twice, and I would've expected the hispanic population would help boost Hillary to at least 5 - 10 points. Looking at the poll, it's a combination of "Likely Voters" skewing more conservative, plus the fact that Nevada is a legitimate swing state so this might happen. The demographics seem kinda skewed though, 60% of responders are over the age of 44.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:That Presidents don't appoint Justices in the election year. But the GOP in the Senate will also move to confirm Garland in the lame duck, should Hillary win the election. This would obviously undermine any notion of a "new precedent" since they would break with precedent on the very act that's supposed to be setting the loving precedent in the first place. The unfortunate thing is, withdrawing Garland would probably have worse consequences for democrats than confirming Garland in the lame duck would for republicans. Even if we somehow get round the clock coverage of Garland's confirmation with accompanying previous GOP rhetoric about the people deciding the next nominee, it's only going to be yet another blatant hypocrisy on the stratospheric garbage pile that is the GOP's history. I think republicans would be able to decently spin a withdrawal as meaning the Garland nomination was always a partisan move, which would be a good enough excuse to keep voting R for republicans on the edge, might convince undecideds and independents that are awake at the time, and disappoint democrats looking for their next 'republicans are obviously scum' fix.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Dirt posted:For anyone who was worried about Trump and his big Pivot of not saying something totally nuts for like two days : https://twitter.com/wpjenna/status/709173580655955971
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Obama is not going to withdraw Garland. In addition to the tactical mistake it would be, it's a huge insult to the man himself. Obama wants Garland on the Supreme Court. Garland's only major downside is his age. He'll still swing the court to the left.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:You'd think a loving business major would know hhhahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahh
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Hey! Be fair. The good Dr. Stein did NOT freak out over radio waves. http://wonkette.com/605241/no-jill-stein-wifi-isnt-cooking-our-childrens-brainzzzz lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:I'd love thread-takes on a question I've been kicking around for a while. I'm pretty skeptical. I suspect a lot of Republicans will sit it out/vote third party OR justify voting Hillary as a one-off thing. They're not going to like Hillary, just see her as a necessary evil. Now if Ted Cruz or some sort of mini-Trump is the 2020 nominee, I think folks will pick up on the trend, but I think folks are writing this off as an anomaly because nobody on the right or even in the center wants to talk about how Trumpism is an inevitable outgrowth of the Republican Party. Geoff Peterson posted:If you're not down with Infosec Taylor Swift though, we can't be internet friends I've got nothing against Infosec Taylor Swift, but others might, hence my question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:They're right. Voting third party (for loving President, at least) is what people who want to stay home but don't want to have stayed home do. Oh I agree with it and watching the comments on the article and where they posted it on fb is hilarious. So much salt. https://www.facebook.com/FPHNews/posts/1171365642886857
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Nah they didn't vote for that. Which is what I meant, basically. Dumb Parliament putting out a referendum they want to lose but getting sabotaged by disenfranchised and racist white people sticking it to the man. Not in the literal separatist sense. You know that the Brexit vote had nothing to do with the UK having a parliamentary system, right? We have provisions for referendums at state and local levels in the US, and we could have them on a national level with an amendment. And even that's glossing over the fact that the Brexit referendum was non-binding, and only an issue because David Cameron's government insisted that the results would be followed. You could have one of the parties in the US commission a nationwide poll, swear up and down that they'll follow the results, and effectively have the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Obama is not going to withdraw Garland. In addition to the tactical mistake it would be, it's a huge insult to the man himself. Obama wants Garland on the Supreme Court. Democrats need to show Republicans, and perhaps more importantly Republicans donors and controllers, that they aren't just about winning elections, but also about doing everything they can to gently caress them when Republicans do this sort of thing. Really rub their nose in their poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
I would like to know how exactly that happens, since Republican voters would follow them into hell even if they pissed on the Constitution itself and the Democratic supporters would infight about How Problematic X statement is
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Gort posted:So how many points would Hillary have to win by in order to gain control of Congress?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
As I don't have cable anymore, I feel like a Jill Stein ad would be indistinguishable from a Republican ad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:She's only running for President. I think what he's asking is how many points would she need to be winning by to indicate such a huge electoral wave that the influence on the downticket races would result in a flipped House and Senate. I think such a question is unknowable, but if I'm speculating she'd have to have a blowout in just about every state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:As I don't have cable anymore, I feel like a Jill Stein ad would be indistinguishable from a Republican ad. The one I remember was just about how they'll actually solve America's problems, and emphasized systemic racism too. They didn't say how, just "we'll do this, and I'm Jill Stein and I think that's cool!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Tbh the republicans already have control of congress, so
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:As I don't have cable anymore, I feel like a Jill Stein ad would be indistinguishable from a Republican ad. "So I said 'I don't care if youre my boss, the WiFi in the building is aggravating my EMS Sensitivity and it has to go" "I mean, I want to buy the tortilla chips, but, I don't know... Am I culturally appropriating by getting the guacamole too?" "EXCUSE me, but is this GMO Labelled? I can't feed this to my cat unless I know"
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:You know that the Brexit vote had nothing to do with the UK having a parliamentary system, right? We have provisions for referendums at state and local levels in the US, and we could have them on a national level with an amendment. And even that's glossing over the fact that the Brexit referendum was non-binding, and only an issue because David Cameron's government insisted that the results would be followed. You could have one of the parties in the US commission a nationwide poll, swear up and down that they'll follow the results, and effectively have the same thing. It was my understanding that Cameron used the referendum as a means to bring the Trumpist equivalents in his party in line, and that he proceeded to gently caress up the referendum and make it so he could actually lose it. The closest equivalent in American politics would be the debt crisis, which they were smart enough to not involve regular Americans in via a referendum because they had no political incentive to. You're right that it isn't endemic to parliamentary systems and we could have a similar farce, but there seems to be a lot more mechanics set up in American government to avoid that (and direct participation in general), which is probably a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
negativeneil posted:I think what he's asking is how many points would she need to be winning by to indicate such a huge electoral wave that the influence on the downticket races would result in a flipped House and Senate. I think such a question is unknowable, but if I'm speculating she'd have to have a blowout in just about every state. So are we pretty much - best case, assuming Trump loses badly - just looking at more of the Obama years, with a Republican-dominated Congress and Senate, and a President who can't actually pass much in the way of worthwhile laws?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Gort posted:So are we pretty much - best case, assuming Trump loses badly - just looking at more of the Obama years, with a Republican-dominated Congress and Senate, and a President who can't actually pass much in the way of worthwhile laws? Clinton could be more successful in her legislative priorities even if there are still Republicans in control. Obama recently signed a massive toxic chemical overhaul bill, so it isn't impossible to pass new major legislation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Gort posted:So are we pretty much - best case, assuming Trump loses badly - just looking at more of the Obama years, with a Republican-dominated Congress and Senate, and a President who can't actually pass much in the way of worthwhile laws? No, there's a pretty good chance Democrats can get the Senate back. This means that appointments can resume (not just SCOTUS but lower level appointments). Judicial decisions will go Lefter and Lefter as time goes on, and you won't get stuff like the Bush Admin EPA. The downside is that executive power will be expanded as Hillary is forced to do more things without legislative consent (nothing illegal, just grey).
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Gort posted:So are we pretty much - best case, assuming Trump loses badly - just looking at more of the Obama years, with a Republican-dominated Congress and Senate, and a President who can't actually pass much in the way of worthwhile laws? When it comes to dealing with Congress, yes, it'll be the same thing as Obama since 2010. It's anybody's guess to what degree Hillary's skill as a politician will overcome the Republicans' hatred of her, and so it's a tossup whether or not she finds it easier or harder to pass bipartisan legislation. If the Democrats retake the Senate, which is possible especially if Clinton blows out Trump, then at least some higher-order business can resume, like appointing judges and signing treaties, but it will still be next to impossible to pass actual legislation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Gort posted:So are we pretty much - best case, assuming Trump loses badly - just looking at more of the Obama years, with a Republican-dominated Congress and Senate, and a President who can't actually pass much in the way of worthwhile laws? There is a half way decent chance for the Senate going blue, which would mean solid SC nominees, but the House is very heavily gerrymandered and would require something pretty miraculous even beyond a sustained making GBS threads of the bed by Trump from now til November. If republicans were to get sick of the Tea Party and work with democrats instead, some decent centrist legislation could happen, until such time as they all get primaried.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Gort posted:So are we pretty much - best case, assuming Trump loses badly - just looking at more of the Obama years, with a Republican-dominated Congress and Senate, and a President who can't actually pass much in the way of worthwhile laws?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
I want Hillary to withdraw Garland and nominate someone to the left of Joe Stalin because it makes me feel good and drat the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Nah. It's more like ShitWholeFoodsPeopleSay.txt "A fool and their money will soon be parted" - Whole Food's motto.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
vorebane posted:There is a half way decent chance for the Senate going blue, which would mean solid SC nominees, but the House is very heavily gerrymandered and would require something pretty miraculous even beyond a sustained making GBS threads of the bed by Trump from now til November. If republicans were to get sick of the Tea Party and work with democrats instead, some decent centrist legislation could happen, until such time as they all get primaried. Note that a solid SC has the potential to strike down at the very least the most problematic excesses of partisan gerrymandering (several of the existing liberal justices have expressed misgivings about partisan gerrymandering IIRC) and restore the VRA, which goes a long way towards making the House more plausible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
I have a good feeling that Duckworth will beat Kirk in IL, but it might not be that much of a help because Kirk is pretty consistently the only R willing to cross the aisle on things like gun control, healthcare and appointments. One of the most difficult things about retaking the House will be seats where there are no D challengers. In my district our current R rep, the shitacular Adam Kinzinger, is running completely unopposed. If the Dems don't grow some balls and run someone next election and I'm still living here, I've considered just running myself as an independent just so people have someone else to vote for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
disjoe posted:I want Hillary to withdraw Garland and nominate someone to the left of Joe Stalin because it makes me feel good and drat the consequences. She won't ever ever do this, there's more of a chance she tries to put a moderate in there as to not anger Republicans or to secure her "legacy" as a unifier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:She won't ever ever do this, there's more of a chance she tries to put a moderate in there as to not anger Republicans or to secure her "legacy" as a unifier. I think it's more likely that it will come down to just how badly the GOP pisses her off by the time she takes office.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2016 19:00
|
|
