Each state has as many "electors" in the Electoral College as it has Representatives and Senators in the United States Congress, and the District of Columbia has three electors.
Ah, thanks.
So a larger House means a larger EC, diminishing the value of empty states' two senators in that count.
Yes. And the House absolutely should be increased in size. In addition to the EC effect, it winds up distorting House representation in favor of more rural states, in a similar (though smaller) effect as is seen in the Senate.
However, there isn't much discussion about increasing the size of the House, so I doubt that would be in the cards during the Biden administration. But who knows.
Hello from @realDonaldTrump’s rally in Latrobe, PA. Temperature checks and masks are required for entry, but vast majority of the several hundred folks waiting have already removed them. Seats set w/ no space between. Venue is an open-sided airplane hangar.
Octavious wrote:President is recommending voter fraud and the main story on Fox is that Nancy went and got a haircut.
Several thousand Trump supporters show up at a rally without masks - no problem.
Pelosi takes off her mask to wash her hair at a salon - national scandal.
Welcome to 2020.
All that matters is "gotcha!"
I can't believe some salon douche bag lied to her so they could get this photo.
Are you certain that’s what happened? I thought I heard on NPR that she was going to a hairdresser that rented a chair from a salon owner. The hairdresser - who had all the communications with Pelosi - was on the up and up, but the salon owner took advantage of the situation when she found out Pelosi was going to be in the salon in violation of pandemic protocols. The closed circuit camera system had been installed 5 years ago and was in routine use.
If all that’s true, it’s no one’s fault but Pelosi and her staff, and their references to a “set up” are pretty lame.
Also, in the grand scheme of things, who gives a shit???
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:17 pmAlso, in the grand scheme of things, who gives a shit???
Optics. When you're the Speaker of the House (or any public official, imho) you should be beyond reproach in your conduct. The video now becomes something for the MAGAt cult to blast out and rally around. Where this fails is that no one cares what any (R) public official does. It boggles the mind.
I don't know what the rules are where she went, but not knowing them and whether or not this was appropriate according to what's being permitted is on her and her team.
Octavious wrote:President is recommending voter fraud and the main story on Fox is that Nancy went and got a haircut.
Several thousand Trump supporters show up at a rally without masks - no problem.
Pelosi takes off her mask to wash her hair at a salon - national scandal.
Welcome to 2020.
All that matters is "gotcha!"
I can't believe some salon douche bag lied to her so they could get this photo.
Are you certain that’s what happened? I thought I heard on NPR that she was going to a hairdresser that rented a chair from a salon owner. The hairdresser - who had all the communications with Pelosi - was on the up and up, but the salon owner took advantage of the situation when she found out Pelosi was going to be in the salon in violation of pandemic protocols. The closed circuit camera system had been installed 5 years ago and was in routine use.
If all that’s true, it’s no one’s fault but Pelosi and her staff, and their references to a “set up” are pretty lame.
Also, in the grand scheme of things, who gives a shit???
This was what I was going off of - the rules were in flux and the owner was playing games according to the stylist. Someone went out of their way to go into their surveillance system and snip the photo out. I'd say that is more than average levels of motivation.
Washington Post wrote:Coronavirus regulations are constantly changing, and the state of California’s restriction website, confusingly, said earlier this week that people can visit salons in San Francisco “indoors with condition.” (The city allowed outdoor services a day after Pelosi’s visit.) Then on Wednesday night, the stylist who did Pelosi’s hair issued a statement alleging that the salon owner approved Pelosi’s in-person visit and had been secretly operating the salon in violation of ordinances since April. (Pelosi’s regular at-home stylist wasn’t available, so going to this salon during the pandemic was a new thing for her.)
...
Pelosi didn’t elaborate on what she meant by a setup. But the stylist who did her hair issued a statement hours later accusing the salon’s owner, Erica Kious, of misleadingly framing Pelosi as the only client to have visited the salon in person in months. “The fact that Ms. Kious is now objecting to Speaker Pelosi’s presence at [eSalon SF], and from a simple surface-level review of Ms. Kious’ political leanings, it appears Ms. Kious is furthering a set-up of Speaker Pelosi for her own vain aspirations,” the statement from stylist Jonathan DeNardo says.
I cut some text that points out that Pelosi passively aggressively said she was set up - which is true but to Kurth's point this is pretty stupid. I can sympathize with a passive aggressive defense because this is ridiculous considering the crimes the administration is committing daily.
Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:17 pmAlso, in the grand scheme of things, who gives a shit???
Optics. When you're the Speaker of the House (or any public official, imho) you should be beyond reproach in your conduct. The video now becomes something for the MAGAt cult to blast out and rally around. Where this fails is that no one cares what any (R) public official does. It boggles the mind.
I don't know what the rules are where she went, but not knowing them and whether or not this was appropriate according to what's being permitted is on her and her team.
Yeah, Smoove, I agree with everything you wrote. What I meant was, substantively, in the grand scheme of things, this is stupid and trivial. But I didn't mean to imply that the optics weren't bad and that it wasn't important (and stupid) for Pelosi to gift this to Trump on a silver platter. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
Octavious wrote:President is recommending voter fraud and the main story on Fox is that Nancy went and got a haircut.
Several thousand Trump supporters show up at a rally without masks - no problem.
Pelosi takes off her mask to wash her hair at a salon - national scandal.
Welcome to 2020.
OK, to be fair, and damn you for making me feel like I have to defend these people, it's the hypocrisy that they are wailing and gnashing teeth about.
Pelosi and liberals mostly seem to be on the side of being responsible wrt the pandemic, and taking it seriously.
I would guess most of the people at a Trump rally probably think it's a hoax, or a nasty trick to try and make their amazing president look bad, or at least that it's not as bad as the Dems and media make it out to be.
Personally I think it's more of a "Ah HA!!" moment than a "gotcha", but l'm not married to that notion.
Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:23 pm
I really want to believe some of the polls-based optimism that I'm seeing here, but just to make super clear: you guys DO remember the lead-up to 2016, and are appropriately super-vigilant and paranoid about the numbers, etc, right?
I sense that you are, but let's try to add in a HUGE statistical cushion here taking into account:
polling margin of error
any impact from Russia's fiddling
any impact from Trump admin fiddling
Some kind of Negative News Piece about Biden that will undoubtedly surface or be fabricated (mark my words, we will see this before the election) FWIW the same people that did the SwiftBoat campaign against Kerry are working for Trump.
I really think it's much too early to even be pondering "I just don't see how he can win from here, going by the numbers". Let's also assume he is an odds beater.
Hell, at this point I'm just hoping that Biden makes it to November.
That isn't a serious concern, but at the same time I honestly wouldn't be surprised, either. We've seen some of the lines that have been blatantly crossed, and there are certainly lines that have been crossed that we haven't seen. Open criminal conduct isn't just accepted, it's cheered. The law doesn't matter when it comes to retaining power. There's not much left that would genuinely surprise me.
Kurth wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 6:17 pmAlso, in the grand scheme of things, who gives a shit???
Optics. When you're the Speaker of the House (or any public official, imho) you should be beyond reproach in your conduct. The video now becomes something for the MAGAt cult to blast out and rally around. Where this fails is that no one cares what any (R) public official does. It boggles the mind.
I don't know what the rules are where she went, but not knowing them and whether or not this was appropriate according to what's being permitted is on her and her team.
Yeah, Smoove, I agree with everything you wrote. What I meant was, substantively, in the grand scheme of things, this is stupid and trivial. But I didn't mean to imply that the optics weren't bad and that it wasn't important (and stupid) for Pelosi to gift this to Trump on a silver platter. Quite the opposite, in fact.
It's hard to see how these particular optics will matter. No one who supports Trump could hate Pelosi more; no one who supports Biden will turn against him for a Pelosi gaffe.
Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Thu Sep 03, 2020 3:23 pm
I really want to believe some of the polls-based optimism that I'm seeing here, but just to make super clear: you guys DO remember the lead-up to 2016, and are appropriately super-vigilant and paranoid about the numbers, etc, right?
I sense that you are, but let's try to add in a HUGE statistical cushion here taking into account:
polling margin of error
any impact from Russia's fiddling
any impact from Trump admin fiddling
Some kind of Negative News Piece about Biden that will undoubtedly surface or be fabricated (mark my words, we will see this before the election) FWIW the same people that did the SwiftBoat campaign against Kerry are working for Trump.
I really think it's much too early to even be pondering "I just don't see how he can win from here, going by the numbers". Let's also assume he is an odds beater.
Hell, at this point I'm just hoping that Biden makes it to November.
That isn't a serious concern, but at the same time I honestly wouldn't be surprised, either. We've seen some of the lines that have been blatantly crossed, and there are certainly lines that have been crossed that we haven't seen. Open criminal conduct isn't just accepted, it's cheered. The law doesn't matter when it comes to retaining power. There's not much left that would genuinely surprise me.
It's the first week of September and I still don't feel like anyone can do anything but guess at what happens in November's election. I feel like I'm watching the NE/Atlanta Super Bowl again and we're in the fourth quarter and this game should be over but...
All I would guarantee is that it will be chaos. No matter what happens, the days (and likely weeks) that follow will be unlike anything we've collectively lived through if I had to guess. The difference will be the ultimate trajectory - will be continue the descent into madness or will there be an actual ray of hope we can try to focus on moving forward?
EDIT: To be clear, Trump and the GOP are the danger to democracy here. I just wanted to make sure there was no confusion. They're a party of troglodytes.
I'm not yet convinced we're in for a weeks-long slog of not knowing the winner. Because for Trump to contest the election, it's going to have to be close. REAL close. As in 1 or 2 states close. And I just don't see that happening. I'm probably being ridiculously naive, but it's just my gut based on polling, campaign spending, demographics, historical trends, etc.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:57 pm
I'm not yet convinced we're in for a weeks-long slog of not knowing the winner. Because for Trump to contest the election, it's going to have to be close. REAL close. As in 1 or 2 states close. And I just don't see that happening.
I think he will contest it unless it is an overwhelming blow out. There is no scenario where he goes quietly absent that massive win. And maybe even then. He is hard wired to believe he can't fail. That is incredibly dangerous now. If the model that he is broken is true then you can't put limits on what he'll try. That has been why so many of the very serious people underestimated the damage he'd cause. It'll be a question of who will stop him and we've seen very few are interested in that. Does that change once an election is lost? I think we'll find that out.
If we're in the same state on Election Day than we are now, then Biden all but has it in the bag, even if it takes several days (or weeks) to call certain states. (Hopefully, one or two of the significant swing states, like PA or FL, gets called for Biden on Election Day and we can all breathe easily)
However, there's two months until election day which, given 2020, means about 20 years worth of things happening that could change the race.
The race might tighten but the other issue is that he is facing indictment on the charges that Cohen plead out to and then the NY State charges. Plus he is surrounded by people who have been breaking the law left and right. They all have skin in the 'road to federal prison' race. Trump's whole brood of malcontents, multiple administration members, and who else knows might be tied into whatever lawlessness will possibly get dredged up. That's powerful incentive to try to keep the reins of power.
YellowKing wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:57 pm
I'm not yet convinced we're in for a weeks-long slog of not knowing the winner. Because for Trump to contest the election, it's going to have to be close. REAL close. As in 1 or 2 states close. And I just don't see that happening. I'm probably being ridiculously naive, but it's just my gut based on polling, campaign spending, demographics, historical trends, etc.
The scenario that rings most true to me goes like this: trump takes an early lead in key states on election night because more Republicans than Democrats vote in person. He declares victory and tries to stop the counting. As mail-in ballots are tallied, his lead evaporates, then reverses. Amidst charges of fraud -- likely exacerbated by instances of real fraud perpetrated by Russians, among others -- he challenges the results, throwing the counting back to individual states, which vary in their own rules and procedures. Chaos ensues. After that, the crystal ball grows foggy. Perhaps trump's justice department and courts uphold his efforts to invalidate the counts. Perhaps his SCOTUS puts its thumb on the scales. Perhaps Biden the Uniter concedes to keep peace.
Trump has got to win in order to stay out of prison, and he will stop at nothing to make that happen.
Kraken wrote: he challenges the results, throwing the counting back to individual states, which vary in their own rules and procedures.
This is where I think Trump's plan falls apart. He can challenge results all he wants. It's a big leap to get states to actually abide by those challenges unless they have a damn good reason to believe their vote counts are inaccurate. It's extremely rare for vote counts to be overturned, even in Trump's best-case scenario where the result is a statistical tie.
I have no doubt he's going to TRY. I have very serious doubts that he has enough support at both federal and state levels to literally steal an election whose results have not come down in his favor. That's a huge ask, even for Trump.
The scenario that rings most true to me goes like this: trump takes an early lead in key states on election night because more Republicans than Democrats vote in person. He declares victory and tries to stop the counting. As mail-in ballots are tallied, his lead evaporates, then reverses. Amidst charges of fraud -- likely exacerbated by instances of real fraud perpetrated by Russians, among others -- he challenges the results, throwing the counting back to individual states, which vary in their own rules and procedures.
Don't the states already do their own counting with their own rules and procedures? Though I suppose he might try to get this might be tied up in the state courts (or the SC).
I'm probably too optimistic, but I believe we'll go to bed very late on November 3 with the sense that Biden has won (and in fact Dems have won the whole Congress) but that the country is almost perfectly equally divided. That will be the new narrative: "How can Dems govern a country divided by a razor's edge??"
Over the following days and weeks it will become clear that the election wasn't close at all, and that it was actually a Blue Wave. But by then it will be too late to revise the prevailing narrative, and we'll have to live for the next two years with GOP and pundit critique that Dems didn't win a "real victory."
Holman wrote: ↑Sun Sep 06, 2020 8:45 pmOver the following days and weeks it will become clear that the election wasn't close at all, and that it was actually a Blue Wave. But by then it will be too late to revise the prevailing narrative, and we'll have to live for the next two years with GOP and pundit critique that Dems didn't win a "real victory."
I agree but mostly because that is almost the certain outcome no matter what. The GOP has for years been de-legitimizing the Democratic party's right to rule. They'll say the above if it was obvious that the Democrats won a landslide. They'd say that if Trump got caught cheating. They'd say it if the Trump actually sent police to the polls.
There is likely no scenario where the Republican party admits they got beat fair and square and just falls back to focusing on winning the next election by moderating itself. It doesn't mean fighting in the streets but it will mean the transition will be a shit show. It means that they'll do everything in their power to break Congress. And they'll be suing/suing/suing about everything in every friendly jurisdiction they have. They don't even have to win cases. They just need to obstruct and slow the system down and make sure the Democrats can't govern.
The scenario that rings most true to me goes like this: trump takes an early lead in key states on election night because more Republicans than Democrats vote in person. He declares victory and tries to stop the counting. As mail-in ballots are tallied, his lead evaporates, then reverses. Amidst charges of fraud -- likely exacerbated by instances of real fraud perpetrated by Russians, among others -- he challenges the results, throwing the counting back to individual states, which vary in their own rules and procedures.
Don't the states already do their own counting with their own rules and procedures? Though I suppose he might try to get this might be tied up in the state courts (or the SC).
Aye, that's where it gets murky. Some states count their mailed-in ballots before election day, some don't. Some states require that ballots be postmarked by election day, some require that they be received. Some states are governed by Democrats, most aren't. We're all going to learn a lot about the processes in a handful of close, key states. One hopes they will allow impartial observers.
Right, so NJ just passed a law allowing mail-in ballots to start being counted 10 days ahead of the election. Guess who is mad about that - go ahead, guess.
Under the law, anyone who “knowingly discloses to the public the contents of a mail-in ballot” before polls close on Election Day could be charged with a third-degree crime. That means violators could face five years in prison and a maximum fine of $15,000.
I'd be amazed if this goes off without a hitch and there aren't insane lawsuits. I continue to maintain when a political party and/or people affiliated with a political party are doing everything they can to stop people from voting, that should tell you everything you need to know.
The race will keep tightening - the polls are showing it. The lesson from 2016 was that inflated poll results were causing Democrats not to bother coming out. I think the goofy polls hurt a lot at that time (not to mention the left taking Trump as a joke). The Pollsters will be making them a little more fair every day from here on in (as people learn to scrutinize the % of Dem/Rep based on 2016 exit data). Wringing our hands about what Trump will do when he loses is the exact same thing we did last time. I suggest its not going to be effective this time either. A close race will fall for Trump. Look to 2024 and keep your powder dry.
I could not care less that Pelosi failed to wear a mask indoors (unsafe) or that Trump supporters failed to wear them at an outdoor rally (fairly safe, if outdoors). But Pelosi getting a salon to open up when its closed - to offer her something that you and I don't get is beyond bad optics. Its simply selective enforcement of the law. This kind of disregard for the little people kills the Democratic party every time (I'm looking at you, Lightfoot) because it makes what used to be true into a public lie - Democrats care about the rank and file.
I think people with an always-left internal view miss the key point: at some point in my lifetime the Democratic party has shifted in ways that common people (apologies to Pulp) can not and will not relate to. Open support for Collectivism. The whole scenario where the Democrats nominate the angriest old white man available who seems to spout racist lines any time he goes off script. The attempts to brush-off looting and burning as "part of a peaceful protest". These things simply won't fit into America.
If the Dems had not put up a white racist who will be an octogenarian for most of his first term, they would be in a position to out Trump for being insensitive and out of touch.
If the Dems would simply expunge the Communists from the ranks they would be a position to claim to love American values.
If the Dems would enforce local laws on arson, assault, theft and destruction of property they could embrace the (now) peaceful protests. But they don't so they can't. Selective enforcement is death of confidence in the law. Seeing the peanut putter spread so unevenly chaffs the average taxpayer to the core.
All Trump has to do to win this thing is pull out an October surprise. Any old thing will do. A vaccine that works. A PRISM harvest of texts authored by Kamala Harris about one of her cases. A Federal RICO suit against Soros for funding organizations that shipped people across state lines to burn, loot and destroy. A few new cabinet members who are less white and male. An expanded middle-East peace deal. A fox news story following One arsonist from WA to OR to the Midwest and detailing her exploits. A Federal report on how the rioters have been using "neutral" social media platforms with simple code words to coordinate their attacks. An executive order to rebuild the Federal highway system creating thousands of jobs in swing states. Maybe even a new nickname for Biden that RHYMES would work, sadly. The President holds all the cards at this point and he is a master at riffing off of what the liberal news cycle gives him. Trump's media aikido game is strong - and somehow no one wants to admit that, even after they are face down in their own dojo. That is why I predict that a close race is a Trump victory. I don't say this with any joy, I am voting for Jo (not Joe) and in a state where my vote is largely symbolic.
This all went bad in IA at the local caucus level. Buttigieg won Iowa in any fair universe. Everything since then has been fallout (yes, bitter). Buttigieg/Gabbard would have taken away Trump base votes. Biden just shores up that base.
I laughed at the idea that the problem is the DEMOCRATS are selectively enforcing the law. Trump’s entire administration is built around protecting him and his friends/allies, and flouting law/norms.
The dumpster fire is already lit. A few Communists in the Democratic Party doesn’t matter when there are many more Nazi/Nationalists in the Republican Party.
The idea that a gay mayor would fare better against Trump is ludicrous — and I LIKE Mayor Pete.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
Yojimbo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:13 am
If the Dems had not put up a white racist who will be an octogenarian for most of his first term, they would be in a position to out Trump for being insensitive and out of touch.
If the Dems would simply expunge the Communists from the ranks they would be a position to claim to love American values.
If the Dems would enforce local laws on arson, assault, theft and destruction of property they could embrace the (now) peaceful protests. But they don't so they can't. Selective enforcement is death of confidence in the law. Seeing the peanut putter spread so unevenly chaffs the average taxpayer to the core.
Is this satire? It’s tough to tell any more...
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
2016 had, apart from 2008, the highest turnout of any presidential election in the last 50 years, so I don't buy that Democrats didn't bother to vote. I think that Buttigieg would have resulted in a different race, and that he would have had his own strengths and weaknesses relative to Biden, a different strategy (likely hammering on youth/energy and military service, and maybe attacks on Trump with relation to the military would be more effective coming from Buttigieg), but I don't think he would be doing as well with older white Americans the way Biden is (both because Biden is a known figure for many older Americans that has made gains in older and white voters and that Buttigieg is, well, gay, something older voters aren't as accepting of.)
I think it's laughable to think Tulsi would be doing as well as Biden. She had favorability numbers that were more underwater (among Democrats) than a boat at a Trump parade.
Last edited by Defiant on Mon Sep 07, 2020 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I was listening to a podcast that offered the helpful reminder that Democrats *always* worry that they're going to lose and Republicans *always* assume they're going to win. This is true even of elections that turn out to be Blue waves, such as 2018.
The reasons are probably complex, but I imagine it has something to do with the Dems running a big-tent coalition party (where the variables can feel hard to be sure about) while the GOP squeezes itself ever more tightly into a purity movement (where doubt equals disloyalty).
One effect of this is that you should beware any polling that asks "Who do you THINK will win the election?" Republican pollsters are fond of these because they have a natural GOP advantage, and they're easy to dress up and present to the gullible (such as the POTUS) as good news.
Zarathud wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:39 am
The idea that a gay mayor would fare better against Trump is ludicrous — and I LIKE Mayor Pete.
You might be right - maybe the way to beat Trump was to go with an even older and whiter man who has spenT his whole life working inside the beltway. We will know for sure in a few weeks.
Biden shows you can work in Washington and still be a good person. Watch him talk about his son Beau, service or tragedy. That’s an authentic person there, if you can recognize one.
It’s an easy stereotype to call all politicians crooks and out of touch. That’s the lie used to normalize Trump.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
Zarathud wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:39 am
The idea that a gay mayor would fare better against Trump is ludicrous — and I LIKE Mayor Pete.
You might be right - maybe the way to beat Trump was to go with an even older and whiter man who has spenT his whole life working inside the beltway. We will know for sure in a few weeks.
It seems to be working so far, as the polls are even less tight than they were a week ago.
Zarathud wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:39 am
The idea that a gay mayor would fare better against Trump is ludicrous — and I LIKE Mayor Pete.
You might be right - maybe the way to beat Trump was to go with an even older and whiter man who has spenT his whole life working inside the beltway. We will know for sure in a few weeks.
He is right. The black working class vote wouldn't turn out for mayor Pete. Also, a lot of people in purple/swing states would be very susceptible to the extreme homophobic attacks on a local/social media targeting level.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Yojimbo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 11:13 am
This all went bad in IA at the local caucus level. Buttigieg won Iowa in any fair universe. Everything since then has been fallout (yes, bitter). Buttigieg/Gabbard would have taken away Trump base votes. Biden just shores up that base.
Jaymann wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:01 pm
So if Biden wins but the Crapublicans hold the Senate, will they try to stonewall any SCOTUS appointments for four years?
Maybe. It depends on the outcome of the balance. Replacing a RB or Breyer with even a moderate pick would be a win for the GOP. Always expect them to be playing the long-game.
