|
Tim Raines IRL posted:The betting sites I am looking at are still heavily favoring Trump against the field. Which kind of bet are you looking at? Predictit has the Democrats as the favourite to take the Whitehouse next year. Are you sure your not looking at particular individuals' chances of winning the Presidency, which in the case of the Democrats also requires they first win a competitive primary.
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
Just want to point out that the whole "house needs to vote" thing is a stalling/stonewalling tactic because congress is in recess, and even if the democrats were to agree to a vote, a full vote cannot happen before October 14
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:The betting sites I am looking at are still heavily favoring Trump against the field. It's the latter. Bookies don't have ideological blinders, and pollsters' unevolved practices are increasingly useless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
motoh posted:It's the latter. Bookies don't have ideological blinders, and pollsters' unevolved practices are increasingly useless. Citation needed
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:democrats won immense majorities in the house, senate, and overwhelmingly won the presidency. they passed their signature campaign promise: health care reform. So what does the normal american do then? Just wait until another justice kicks the bucket to balance the scales?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
motoh posted:It's the latter. Bookies don't have ideological blinders, and pollsters' unevolved practices are increasingly useless. Not sure about that, because I think by and large everyone is keenly aware Trump won after seemingly all odds were against him, so even if he was down 11 points to the dem field on average (which some polls are showing) people are still gonna hedge on him staying in power Predictit is such a case study on group psychology and sociology, I wish I had the chops to study that stuff more. It must be a real goldmine
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:42
|
|
|
hidden_msg posted:So what does the normal american do then? Just wait until another justice kicks the bucket to balance the scales? people get disillusioned and the gop takes back at least the senate and we're back to gridlock.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
hidden_msg posted:So what does the normal american do then? Just wait until another justice kicks the bucket to balance the scales? support packing the supreme court and push your representatives to do so as well, which can be done by ordinary legislation
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:people get disillusioned and the gop takes back at least the senate and we're back to gridlock. so the best hope is to tread water? evilweasel posted:support packing the supreme court and push your representatives to do so as well, which can be done by ordinary legislation Doesn't that run into the same problem of passing any other legislation, i.e. Republicans create a legal theory on why it is bad and gets overruled in the Supreme Court? e: didn't see EW's post
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:43
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:The betting sites I am looking at are still heavily favoring Trump against the field. Betting odds are based on bets made by gamblers, who are notoriously poo poo at predicting the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:The betting sites I am looking at are still heavily favoring Trump against the field. Or am I misunderstanding?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
hidden_msg posted:So what does the normal american do then? Just wait until another justice kicks the bucket to balance the scales? Pretty much. Supreme Court justices are “do or die” moments and we collectively screwed the pooch on this one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:Citation needed The whole point of setting odds is to get equal betting on both sides. The line moves to favor one side when bets heavily favor the other, to create balance. This has *nothing* to do with the actual outcome and everything to do with the public perception of what will happen
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:44
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Which kind of bet are you looking at? Predictit has the Democrats as the favourite to take the Whitehouse next year. Are you sure your not looking at particular individuals' chances of winning the Presidency, which in the case of the Democrats also requires they first win a competitive primary. yeah seriously, if republicans are heavily favored to win the 2020 (as opposed to trump being narrowly favored over a split cast of a bunch of individual democrats) you should tell us where this site is so we can bet on it
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
hidden_msg posted:So what does the normal american do then? Just wait until another justice kicks the bucket to balance the scales? So I'mma say pack the courts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:45
|
|
|
Benghazi.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
hidden_msg posted:Doesn't that run into the same problem of passing any other legislation, i.e. Republicans create a legal theory on why it is bad and gets overruled in the Supreme Court? the supreme court has been packed many, many times in history (or unpacked). the senate would just go ahead and confirm the new justices who would then dismiss that nonsense out of hand with their new majority.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
looked at the piece on Joni Ernst's town hallquote:Ernst, who's facing re-election next year, said last week she wasn't concerned about the substance of the call. "I've looked at the transcript; I don't see anything there," she told The Washington Post. quote:Pushed about Trump asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival, Ernst said she's spoken out against corruption in Ukraine in the past and "corruption, no matter where it is should be ferreted out." As for allegations Trump shook down Ukraine by withholding aid, Ernst noted that the Senate Intelligence Committee is looking into the Ukraine allegations and she was "not jumping to any conclusion. We don't have the full story yet. But once we do we can make that determination." this is pretty much exactly what we want to be happening, stumbling answers that try to repeat talking points but fail because they're so obviously dumb
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:It's funny how when a republican is president they seem to have near limitless power, but when a democrat is president they seem to wander around the Oval Office with a blindfold on. Obama could have appointed a liberal SC judge during a congressional recess, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong). It wouldn't have lasted forever, but it would be a thing. He could have hammered on in the press about obstruction in the senate for months and months leading up to the election. Instead he just planned his trip to Billionaire Island. The Republicans never recessed once they took control of Congress in 2010. Obama tried to appoint, but the Supreme Court overturned his appointments 9-0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:48
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Not sure about that, because I think by and large everyone is keenly aware Trump won after seemingly all odds were against him, so even if he was down 11 points to the dem field on average (which some polls are showing) people are still gonna hedge on him staying in power Except the prediction markets actually have Trump as an underdog. The gamblers are betting against him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the supreme court has been packed many, many times in history (or unpacked). the senate would just go ahead and confirm the new justices who would then dismiss that nonsense out of hand with their new majority. But don't you have a problem with increasing the amount of supreme court seats first? I would think, and I don't know, that you would have to pass increasing the chairs from 9 to say 11 or 13. Then you would start confirming justices. What prevents the current justices from adopting some republican legal theory that says "No actually you can't increase the number of seats on the supreme court in this case"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:here it comes Bye bye abortions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:50
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:The Republicans never recessed once they took control of Congress in 2010. Obama tried to appoint, but the Supreme Court overturned his appointments 9-0. obama tried to appoint a NLRB officials in 2012, yeah, and the supreme court killed it in 2014. that's NLRB v. Canning and it definitely hosed any hope to do the same with Garland in 2016
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
hidden_msg posted:But don't you have a problem with increasing the amount of supreme court seats first? I would think, and I don't know, that you would have to pass increasing the chairs from 9 to say 11 or 13. Then you would start confirming justices. What prevents the current justices from adopting some republican legal theory that says "No actually you can't increase the number of seats on the supreme court in this case"? the court would already be packed by the time some case worked its way up through the lower courts and then your packed court would vote against (it if it ever made it that far).
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
hidden_msg posted:But don't you have a problem with increasing the amount of supreme court seats first? I would think, and I don't know, that you would have to pass increasing the chairs from 9 to say 11 or 13. Then you would start confirming justices. What prevents the current justices from adopting some republican legal theory that says "No actually you can't increase the number of seats on the supreme court in this case"? The already-packed court would be the one to decide that question
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:obama is very stupid if he thought garland had any chance of getting through. then again he did seem delusional for a lot of his presidency in regards to bipartisanship and assorted bullshit. Garland would have been approved by the senate if McConnell had allowed the vote to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
hidden_msg posted:But don't you have a problem with increasing the amount of supreme court seats first? I would think, and I don't know, that you would have to pass increasing the chairs from 9 to say 11 or 13. Then you would start confirming justices. What prevents the current justices from adopting some republican legal theory that says "No actually you can't increase the number of seats on the supreme court in this case"? It is unclear to me how you could possibly get the supreme court to rule on the law prior to the new justices being confirmed. And even if they find some way to do it, then tell them to go gently caress themselves and continue and if they want to write angry dissents from now until eternity about the illegitimacy of the expanded court, well, gently caress em.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Lol that this is the thing he has to check instead of just BSing his way through it. "Hmm, investigating actual corruption? That doesn't sound like me..." * * this paraphrase has been awarded 4.5 Pinocchios
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
hidden_msg posted:But don't you have a problem with increasing the amount of supreme court seats first? I would think, and I don't know, that you would have to pass increasing the chairs from 9 to say 11 or 13. Then you would start confirming justices. What prevents the current justices from adopting some republican legal theory that says "No actually you can't increase the number of seats on the supreme court in this case"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Except the prediction markets actually have Trump as an underdog. The gamblers are betting against him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Didn't they also predict him losing in 2016? yes, but the accuracy of betting markets is a secondary consideration when it's disputed what they're predicting in the first place
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
i wish i had bet on trump winning i bet people made a killing on that. if the dems gained unitary control again packing the court should be the first move but i don't see them ever doing that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:the court would already be packed by the time some case worked its way up through the lower courts and then your packed court would vote against (it if it ever made it that far). goethe.cx posted:The already-packed court would be the one to decide that question evilweasel posted:It is unclear to me how you could possibly get the supreme court to rule on the law prior to the new justices being confirmed. And even if they find some way to do it, then tell them to go gently caress themselves and continue and if they want to write angry dissents from now until eternity about the illegitimacy of the expanded court, well, gently caress em. Ok. It sounds like I don't understand the action of 'packing the court'. I'll have to read up on this. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Didn't they also predict him losing in 2016? Their predictive powers should not be overestimated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:trump lost the vote by nearly 3 million. it doesn't get better for the GOP from here. It does if our population growth heavily skews toward regions that Democrats already control, given our geographically weighted electoral process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
really we need a political revolution with general strikes and mass protests to force a rewrite of the Constitution because the system is broken as gently caress, what we need is to abolish the Senate, have the House be a parliamentary body with the Speaker as essentially PM, much reduced powers of the President and Executive, and let's say 5-year terms for SCOTUS of course things aren't remotely bad enough for that to happen yet so I guess we'll try to limp along until climate change wrecks everything
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
The most obvious thing is the supreme court has become overly political and requires term limits now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:58
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Yeah, there is no reason to hear a case that is nearly identical to the Texas case a few years ago unless they're planning on ruling differently now. Wait a second, you can't possibly suggest that any of those conservative justices recently put on the bench who swore they would uphold the precedent of Roe v. Wade are in fact not going to keep their words!!!?!!! Fetch me my finest pearls!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
hidden_msg posted:Ok. It sounds like I don't understand the action of 'packing the court'. I'll have to read up on this. Thanks. the number of supreme court justices isn't in the constitution it's based on legislation. so congress could pass a law to up it to 11 and then put in two liberal justices to create a new majority.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:42 |
|
|
Pellisworth posted:really we need a political revolution with general strikes and mass protests to force a rewrite of the Constitution because the system is broken as gently caress, what we need is to abolish the Senate, have the House be a parliamentary body with the Speaker as essentially PM, much reduced powers of the President and Executive, and let's say 5-year terms for SCOTUS Also there's the problem of trying to amend/rewrite the constitution when the GOP still exists as a political entity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 16:59
|
|
