|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:It's amazing to me that we are holding on to the Senate seat in AZ. I’ll give credit to McSally and the Republican SoS in Arizona, whose name eludes me at the moment; unlike Scott and the gang in Florida, they’re being exactly as responsible, mature, and respectable as you would want officials to be in an extremely close election. The SoS even put out an explainer of why ballots are taking so long, knocking down conspiracy theories that others are stoking. Could this be because McSally wants to set up a fallback in the event that she loses this, as it looks like she will? Probably; with Kyl leaving his seat in January, the new Arizona governor will need to nominate a Republican to replace him through 2020, and who better than McSally?
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 04:32 |
|
|
VH4Ever posted:Wow lots of Senate elections to come then for AZ, should be very interesting to see who runs, who wins, who loses etc. Yeah, they’re going to have senate elections for five cycles straight. McCain in 16, Sinema/McSally in 18, McCain’s replacement in 20, McCain’s replacement again in 22, Sinema/McSally in 24, and then finally in 26 they get a cycle off.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:it's official - also can someone explain how to embed tweets properly please? If you just paste the link to the tweet, it will embed itself automatically. I don’t know if it shows up on post previews. Nemo Somen posted:Hm, I hope returning voting rights to felons helps against this because Florida switching from lean Dem to lean R makes the path to 270 look real awkward for Dems. Of course, the situation is a bit more complex than that. It's just that I'm looking at the red states and feel confident that most of them won't vote for a generic Dem and I think a good number of blue states can go red if a candidate devoid of charisma is at the top of the ticket. I wonder who would be a good Dem to maintain a hold on these states. Amendment 4 isn’t quite as automatic as it sounds— there’s a requirement to repay court costs, I believe, that’s going to make it tough for the very poor to afford restoration. But it will have an impact if by sheer numbers alone— we’re talking over a million newly eligible voters. Even if a fraction of them meet the new requirements and vote, that’s hundreds of thousands of new voters. Florida in 2020 is going to look different from 2018, for sure. Edit: It’s also a huge improvement over the old system, where governors had effectively arbitrary control over whether individual felons had rights restored. You would need to individually plead your case to the governor and the cabinet, and he could deny you for any reason without recourse or appeal. https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/09/11/pleading-for-the-right-to-vote-in-florida-one-case-at-a-time/ Teddybear fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Nov 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 20:41
|
|
|
Zeeman posted:So when the deadline passes and the recount hasn't been completed, what will happen? SOS just gets to say "Better luck next time, assholes" and that's it? I think they can just say “what you’ve done you’ve done.” I would expect that there would be lawsuits to try to get a court to order recounts to continue beyond the deadline. The recount in Florida is going to be worse than 2000. 2000 was one statewide race of six million votes; 2018 is three statewide races of eight million votes each, plus the occasional local recount on top. There’s a real chance that this could go up the judiciary once more. eke out posted:I've repeatedly seen this come up with people poo-pooing Amendment 4's potential effect (not that you are here) but to date I've seen no statistics that suggests there's a huge population of former felons that still have outstanding court fees. I’ll defer to you, then; I don’t know the details of Florida criminal law, I practice neither Florida law nor criminal law, so I go off my understandings from afar. Teddybear fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Nov 11, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
I think he’s trying to build a national profile and conservative credibility to survive a primary in 2020. Failing that, he might be setting up his post-senate career early.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Projection. This feels like an unusual amount of retracted/blown calls for an election-- both in that it's several media companies making the same mistakes, and that there's been so many of them. I don't remember these sorts of slipups happening in 2016 or before-- am I wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DanEggenWPost/status/1062188892785438720 Nielsen on the way out; Kelly, who put Nielsen there, might be, too.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
E: Sorry, I forgot this was a no-Wohl zone.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
Honestly, we probably should just make ambassadors non-senate-confirmable positions, or make it a senate-vetoable position. Is there a specific constitutional provision that requires they be senate confirmed that I'm forgetting?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2018 03:24
|
|
|
Well, there you go. I haven't brushed up on my appointments clause lately. Nevermind.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I absolutely believe this; every time I draft a motion my first step is to find a similar motion someone filed to copy all of the formatting and boilerplate from. Holy poo poo is that an incredible find. This is like every lawyer's worst nightmare come to life, except instead of it being having to file an amended motion/complaint sheepishly swapping out names, they've given away that they've filed charges against a guy they're desperately trying to pretend is free to walk out of his self-imposed asylum.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2018 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 04:32 |
|
|
DaveWoo posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/1063878129125548032 Am I mistaken— a finding that he is would trip the Magnitsky Act sanctions and lead to basically the end of Saudi-US business, given how entrenched MBS is?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2018 21:09
|
|