|
Fuschia tude posted:It's looking more and more possible, actually. The current confirmed tally is 47 Dems/48 GOP. Outstanding seats are: Alaska (Almost certain GOP win) North Carolina (GOP candidate leads with ~100K votes and 94% reported, a flip is possible but unlikely) Arizona (Dems win barring last minute fuckery) Georgia x2 (Both are likely going to runoff elections the Dems are heavily expected to lose) So you're looking at a most likely outcome of Dems having 48 or 49 seats. That's... not great.
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 11:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
Sydin posted:The current confirmed tally is 47 Dems/48 GOP. Outstanding seats are: Where are you even looking that has Arizona as an open question? That race got called yesterday Edit: Also 49 is basically impossible, it's 48 or 50 unless the exact same set of voters says yes to one runoff and no to the other for "reasons"
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:unless the exact same set of voters says yes to one runoff and no to the other for "reasons" This is not entirely impossible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
Warnock is good and everyone hates Loeffler. It's a possible win. Ossof is a hugely uncharismatic dope though. I think Perdue will win
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
I mean while I personally can't imagine the type of voter who would, on the same ballot, choose one Democratic and one Republican senator, you don't need those people to be a very big proportion of the electorate to swing a close race.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:Where are you even looking that has Arizona as an open question? That race got called yesterday Warnock is in a notably easier race
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 19:33
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I mean while I personally can't imagine the type of voter who would, on the same ballot, choose one Democratic and one Republican senator, you don't need those people to be a very big proportion of the electorate to swing a close race. Be one of the people who votes for a president from one and a congress from the other to maintain bipartisanship and balance
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I mean while I personally can't imagine the type of voter who would, on the same ballot, choose one Democratic and one Republican senator, you don't need those people to be a very big proportion of the electorate to swing a close race. I'd agree with this if it was a general election, but I feel like the fact that you are turning out ONLY to vote on THIS ONE THING means that people who would choose to split the ballot like that are going to be less likely to turn out in the first place. Maybe I'm off base here, but I don't think there's any sort of precedent we can point to that would hold any water so I concede this is a gutfeel rather than a fact haveblue posted:Be one of the people who votes for a president from one and a congress from the other to maintain bipartisanship and balance Right, but it's even dumber than that because it's the same branch and office. I can imagine there being people who only check a box for someone whose name they recognize from ads or debates or something, I just can't imagine those people being able to escape the enormous crush of "vote for these two candidates if you want another check in the mail" ads BougieBitch fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Nov 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2020 19:39
|
|
|
BougieBitch posted:Where are you even looking that has Arizona as an open question? That race got called yesterday Perdue sucks but I'm pretty sure Loeffler is hated by a lot of Republicans and her Dem opponent is liked more than Perdue's.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 00:05
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:I mean while I personally can't imagine the type of voter who would, on the same ballot, choose one Democratic and one Republican senator, you don't need those people to be a very big proportion of the electorate to swing a close race. Im balanced bro i voted for one democrat and one republican so that they can check eachother
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 01:31
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Perdue sucks but I'm pretty sure Loeffler is hated by a lot of Republicans and her Dem opponent is liked more than Perdue's. i think you’ll find that people are very willing to vote for a candidate they dislike to promote their party’s interest, based on, well, y’know
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2020 18:34
|
|
|
Is the SCOTUS ruling on the Pennsylvania ballots actually insane, or does it make sense? Didn't the state supreme court rule on it, and it's state law how they handle their election process? What jurisdiction does the SC have? Edit: or not ruling, whatever thing they did where they told them to keep segregating the mail in ballots that arrived after election day
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 04:10
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Is the SCOTUS ruling on the Pennsylvania ballots actually insane, or does it make sense? Didn't the state supreme court rule on it, and it's state law how they handle their election process? What jurisdiction does the SC have? All they did was tell them to keep segregating the ballots pending their actual decision. It just gives them a chance to hear the case and make a real ruling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 04:17
|
|
|
Papercut posted:All they did was tell them to keep segregating the ballots pending their actual decision. It just gives them a chance to hear the case and make a real ruling. Right. They just told them to set the ballots aside. It was a way for the Court to keep the option of stealing the election open but not actually do it unless they had to and it mattered. Since other states also flipped, it won't matter, so the SC won't bother.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 04:24
|
|
|
Papercut posted:All they did was tell them to keep segregating the ballots pending their actual decision. It just gives them a chance to hear the case and make a real ruling. Right, but fundamentally it means they're saying they could rule on it. I guess I'm asking for like a really baby level explanation, but isn't it entirely within the state's jurisdiction on how they handle their elections and get the results, and the supreme court of PA already ruled it was cool? Why are they allowed to do anything there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 04:37
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Right, but fundamentally it means they're saying they could rule on it. I guess I'm asking for like a really baby level explanation, but isn't it entirely within the state's jurisdiction on how they handle their elections and get the results, and the supreme court of PA already ruled it was cool? Why are they allowed to do anything there? The argument from kavanaugh is that the constitution vests the election decision power solely in the legislature so court or governor extended deadlines are invalid unless they have been delegates such authority by the state legislature. There are only a couple thousand votes statewide that fall into this group so it doesn’t matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 04:42
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Right, but fundamentally it means they're saying they could rule on it. I guess I'm asking for like a really baby level explanation, but isn't it entirely within the state's jurisdiction on how they handle their elections and get the results, and the supreme court of PA already ruled it was cool? Why are they allowed to do anything there? Marbury v Madison: "we can do whatever we want, gently caress you, lick my taint" E: the part about "yeah lick it, lick it good" is generally agreed to be dicta and therefore nonbinding
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 04:46
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Right, but fundamentally it means they're saying they could rule on it. I guess I'm asking for like a really baby level explanation, but isn't it entirely within the state's jurisdiction on how they handle their elections and get the results, and the supreme court of PA already ruled it was cool? Why are they allowed to do anything there? I think this is a "better safe than sorry" thing. Segregating the ballots now is relatively easy and has no long-term consequences, but commingling them removes potential remedies in the future, even if those remedies are unlikely to be called for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 04:47
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Is the SCOTUS ruling on the Pennsylvania ballots actually insane, or does it make sense? Didn't the state supreme court rule on it, and it's state law how they handle their election process? What jurisdiction does the SC have? The SC has whatever jurisdiction it wants to have. There's no real counter to them deciding "yeah this is purely a state matter but gently caress you we're intervening because we want to" other than a state just straight up ignoring any subsequent SCOTUS decision. In this case Rapey McBeer and a few others want to push an insane "well actually, the legislature has sole authority over their state's EVs. Wait the legislature passed a law saying how their elections and EVs are handled? Uh... well gently caress you we're just going to ignore that and also we don't care about the pandemic" legal theory that would have no rational basis and exist solely to allow the states with GOP legislatures that went for Biden (like PA, GA, and other) to steal their state's electors for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 05:04
|
|
|
Yeah the legal argument is that the US constitution gives the state legislature the power to control elections, and that this overrides anything the state constitution or courts might say, therefore the PA state supreme court violated the US constitution by changing something only the state legislature is allowed change
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 05:13
|
|
|
Also PA was already doing this so the entire filing was essentially so Trump and co could say "LOOK THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN OUR FAVOR, THAT MEANS THERE'S DEFINITELY FRAUD" Keep the grift going for a few more days
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 05:53
|
|
|
Funnily enough, wouldn't that logic overturn Shelby?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 06:26
|
|
|
Dameius posted:Funnily enough, wouldn't that logic overturn Shelby? Yes this logic is in direct conflict with Shelby.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 12:19
|
|
|
Looking forward to Biden and McConnell healing our nation by confirming Garland to replace Breyer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 17:35
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Looking forward to Biden and McConnell healing our nation by confirming Garland to replace Breyer. Too old, McConnell is going to hold the seat open while waiting for the new Liberty U Law School class to graduate
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 18:23
|
|
|
From a progressive perspective Garland is not a bad pick to replace Breyer. He's old enough that when a younger more progressive President is elected they can replace Garland probably.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 19:49
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:From a progressive perspective Garland is not a bad pick to replace Breyer. He's old enough that when a younger more progressive President is elected they can replace Garland probably. No way that could bite us in the rear end, nope nope!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 20:09
|
|
|
Stickman posted:No way that could bite us in the rear end, nope nope! Think of it as setting for yourself a punishment to get a task done by the due date. Win elections and it isn't a problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 20:12
|
|
|
Punch left as hard as you can every time. No exceptions. No compromises.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Yes this logic is in direct conflict with Shelby. gross hypocrisy has never stopped the supreme court before
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 02:25
|
|
|
It probably has, but we'll never know about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:It probably has, but we'll never know about it. Sure we do, stare decisis is just a fancy phrase for "avoiding gross hypocrisy"
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 03:15
|
|
|
Any Democratic president nominating anyone who isn't to the left of Sotomayor has failed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 03:34
|
|
|
Good thread on the arguments about the ACA before the Court. The Justices seem to be pretty friendly to the severability argument which would mean not striking down the entire law. Even Justice ACB. https://twitter.com/pdmcleod/status/1326184994667180032?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
SCOTUS blog is livetweeting the oral argument and Thomas has questions. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1326179862462214145?s=20 https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1326187894881607681?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
its always dangerous to read the tea leaves, but that sure sounds like the Supreme Court is preparing to emphatically reject the ACA challenge by a wide margin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 18:24
|
|
|
Rigel posted:its always dangerous to read the tea leaves, but that sure sounds like the Supreme Court is preparing to emphatically reject the ACA challenge by a wide margin. Of course, because they have senate seats up for grabs in a few months.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
God those legal arguments for killing the entire ACA are just so unbelievably bad. Alito's question about "how is this so vital to the ACA working when it's been this way for years and nothing bad happened" should've been the end of this farce. I'm not sure what the arguments for tossing the entire thing are at this point other than "well clearly Congress in 2010 thought X therefore..."Shammypants posted:Of course, because they have senate seats up for grabs in a few months. This definitely isn't helping the plaintiffs either. If the SCOTUS loses its mind and kill the ACA then you're going to hand the Dems a gift that even Dem leadership (probably) isn't going to waste.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
The arguments make no sense, but neither did the last case (King v Burwell). The only anti-ACA arguments that were not facially stupid were the ones in the original case and they still didn't get what they wanted. It's all a grift to funnel donor money to law firms, they don't care about winning, in fact if they actually did win they would immediately panic because millions of people in red states would instantly lose Medicaid coverage and they have no plan to deal with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
The plan is for those people to die, and with their dying breath curse the Democrats
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 21:09
|
|