RBG Politcal Discussion

[Anonymous]

There's the $100 million to ActBlue immediately after RBG's death was announced. There will be more. This may motivate some evangelicals who I guess did not care enough about banning abortion until now? Don't think there will be many of those. But on the left and the middle, many have been horrified enough with 4 years of Trump and Covid and now a 6-3 conservative majority? I just made another impulsive donation. Feel even more energized to defeat Trump and Republicans. I'm gonna go print out my letters. Have a great evening!

[Anonymous]

I don’t see how Mitch moves this in the lame duck.
1. The People will have spoken, loud and clear, with Biden’s walloping of Trump.
2. Arizona’s Kelly is seared in late November.
3. The incoming Senate will be at least 52-48 Democratic. I highly doubt that Jones will lose in Alabama.
4. The People will have expressed a strong and clear preference for a liberal Justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see how Mitch moves this in the lame duck.
1. The People will have spoken, loud and clear, with Biden’s walloping of Trump.
2. Arizona’s Kelly is seared in late November.
3. The incoming Senate will be at least 52-48 Democratic. I highly doubt that Jones will lose in Alabama.
4. The People will have expressed a strong and clear preference for a liberal Justice.

excuse me, “seated.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see how Mitch moves this in the lame duck.
1. The People will have spoken, loud and clear, with Biden’s walloping of Trump.
2. Arizona’s Kelly is seared in late November.
3. The incoming Senate will be at least 52-48 Democratic. I highly doubt that Jones will lose in Alabama.
4. The People will have expressed a strong and clear preference for a liberal Justice.

excuse me, “seated.”

There have been some really great typos/autocorrects in this thread.

Pelosi today said that she has some more arrows in her quiver. Let’s hope!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats should be very careful not to make attacks against ACB that could be perceived as anti-religious bigotry or misogynist. That could hurt in the election with Catholics in PA and in the Main Line suburbs. ACB is going to be much more difficult for Democrats to try to destroy with personal attacks. Focus on her limited experience as a judge (only around 3 years) and see if you can pick off a few Republican senators reluctant to cast a vote to so close to an election.

This is funny- yes, be careful to hide your anti Catholic bigotry. You are so subtle, we Catholics have no idea! No clue!

It’s not that she’s a practicing Catholic, it’s just her inexperience!

Remind which party’s nominee is a practicing catholic?

Lmao - most Catholics prefer a non- Catholic to a willful apostate like Joe Biden. Maybe be can intern at the local abortion clinic after he loses the race.

Only 11% of US Catholics subscribe to the church’s view on abortion (illegal under all circumstances). If republicans want to spend the next month calling the other 89% of us apostates, have it at it.

+1
I’ll go you one better, PP. Trump didn’t actually win the Catholic vote.
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/04/06/new-data-suggest-clinton-not-trump-won-catholic-vote

He does not need to win the vote. He just needs to do as well as he did last time or slightly better, especially in swing states like PA. The attacks on ACB will help Trump. Biden needs to denounce these attacks early and often.

Not true. He has lost a lot of the senior vote in Arizona and Florida which makes both of those more swing than they were in 2016. That's 40 of the 44 extra votes that he needs. So, now, not only is he battling in the same states as he was in 2016, he now has to defend several states that were locks in 2016.

There's a reason why his campaign is out of money. He's spent a ton of money shoring up states that are traditionally red where he has been falling behind. He's blown through the biggest warchest in history and he's still behind. Fortunately, his corporate masters have just donated another $25M to a new PAC to help him out. That will help offset about 1/3 of the money that ActBlue just recorded for the 24 hour period after RGB passed. And before that he was almost $200M behind from the aftermath of the two conventions. So, Biden has about $250M more than Trump from the last 4 weeks alone.

+1 Some details on this here from an editor at Cook Political Report:

[Anonymous]

National polls are useless. The only states that matter are AZ, WI, MI, PA, NC, and FL. That's were the race will be decided. RBG's death may help Trump in the coming few weeks, especially if he nominates a well-qualified woman with a solid background. However, I doubt he pulls enough support to eek out a victory over Biden.

With that said, it's more likely than not that Biden's victory won't be a landslide. The Dems may take control of the Senate, but if they do, it's likely to be a 51-49 majority or 50-50 with the VP tie-breaking vote.

A narrow Biden victory gives the GOP enough political ammunition to place the Trump nominee on the Court before the end of the end of the year.

I know some liberals want to expand the court next year, but I don't think they'll have the votes or support to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see how Mitch moves this in the lame duck.
1. The People will have spoken, loud and clear, with Biden’s walloping of Trump.
2. Arizona’s Kelly is seared in late November.
3. The incoming Senate will be at least 52-48 Democratic. I highly doubt that Jones will lose in Alabama.
4. The People will have expressed a strong and clear preference for a liberal Justice.

excuse me, “seated.”

There have been some really great typos/autocorrects in this thread.

Pelosi today said that she has some more arrows in her quiver. Let’s hope!

Like what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see how Mitch moves this in the lame duck.
1. The People will have spoken, loud and clear, with Biden’s walloping of Trump.
2. Arizona’s Kelly is seared in late November.
3. The incoming Senate will be at least 52-48 Democratic. I highly doubt that Jones will lose in Alabama.
4. The People will have expressed a strong and clear preference for a liberal Justice.

excuse me, “seated.”

There have been some really great typos/autocorrects in this thread.

Pelosi today said that she has some more arrows in her quiver. Let’s hope!

Like what?

They can impeach Barr or DeJoy and the Senate has to take that up before anything else.

[Anonymous]

NEW REUTERS POLL: 62% say the Ruth Bader Ginsburg SC vacancy should be filled by the winner of the election, including HALF OF REPUBLICANS. Just 23% disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NEW REUTERS POLL: 62% say the Ruth Bader Ginsburg SC vacancy should be filled by the winner of the election, including HALF OF REPUBLICANS. Just 23% disagree.

Let Fox News work on them for a week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see how Mitch moves this in the lame duck.
1. The People will have spoken, loud and clear, with Biden’s walloping of Trump.
2. Arizona’s Kelly is seared in late November.
3. The incoming Senate will be at least 52-48 Democratic. I highly doubt that Jones will lose in Alabama.
4. The People will have expressed a strong and clear preference for a liberal Justice.

lol.

[Anonymous]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-biden-rule-doesnt-apply-in-2020-11600545795

explanation of the difference between 2016 and 2020, when invoking the Biden rule. (Which Biden now denies.)

This exception was popularized in 1992 by Sen. Joe Biden, then chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He urged President George H.W. Bush to refrain from making any Supreme Court nominations in that election year. What made 1992 different from other election years, Mr. Biden explained, was that “divided Government” reflected an absence of a “nationwide consensus” on constitutional philosophy. “Action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over,” the future vice president insisted. No vacancy arose until 1993, when Bill Clinton was in the White House and Ginsburg’s nomination easily passed a Democratic Senate. But the Biden rule fit 2016 to a tee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-biden-rule-doesnt-apply-in-2020-11600545795

explanation of the difference between 2016 and 2020, when invoking the Biden rule. (Which Biden now denies.)

This exception was popularized in 1992 by Sen. Joe Biden, then chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He urged President George H.W. Bush to refrain from making any Supreme Court nominations in that election year. What made 1992 different from other election years, Mr. Biden explained, was that “divided Government” reflected an absence of a “nationwide consensus” on constitutional philosophy. “Action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over,” the future vice president insisted. No vacancy arose until 1993, when Bill Clinton was in the White House and Ginsburg’s nomination easily passed a Democratic Senate. But the Biden rule fit 2016 to a tee.

Yes, McConnell has an argument that he is being consistent based on how he carefully chose his words in 2016. However, there are several GOP senators that expanded on the Biden rule in their promises never to vote to fill a vacancy right before an election.

The vote will have to be in December in any event. There is not enough time for Republicans to act before the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-the-biden-rule-doesnt-apply-in-2020-11600545795

explanation of the difference between 2016 and 2020, when invoking the Biden rule. (Which Biden now denies.)

This exception was popularized in 1992 by Sen. Joe Biden, then chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He urged President George H.W. Bush to refrain from making any Supreme Court nominations in that election year. What made 1992 different from other election years, Mr. Biden explained, was that “divided Government” reflected an absence of a “nationwide consensus” on constitutional philosophy. “Action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over,” the future vice president insisted. No vacancy arose until 1993, when Bill Clinton was in the White House and Ginsburg’s nomination easily passed a Democratic Senate. But the Biden rule fit 2016 to a tee.

There is no difference and there is no such rule. There is no principle involved here. It is just a matter of politics. McConnell changes his position when it suits him. The more he does this, the more the other side will too.The ball is in his court. For now.

[Anonymous]

Well, Biden made several errors in his speech today.

200 million dead from COVID--later in the speech he did say 200,000 "as I said earlier" but he said 200 million earlier.

Here is some more--he said that there would not be a Supreme Court session until after the election. It actually opens Oct 5.

He said that the GOP started asking for his list when Ginsburg died. They've been asking for it for months. In fact, he said awhile back that he had it and would be releasing it. Story has now changed. He did make it clear that his nominee would be a Black woman. (He may have said woman of color, but I think he said Black.)

from NPR
https://twitter.com/NPRnie/status/1307752679943348224