Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Presidential Election: 11/3/20- Democracy’s Savior Joe vs Super Spreader Dictator Donald


Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, China said:

I think the answer is that Trump, his family and his cronies are lining their pockets with the money which is why it seems to disappear.

 

You have such a negative opinion of them.  

 

Guess you've been awake, last three years.  

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment I can’t help but feel that Biden should have stayed out of the scotus thing. Not that he shouldn’t comment at all, just I don’t think he should have gone to the point of dictating how it should happen. 
 

it’s an optics thing, and a question of what it all means for votes in the election, to me. I think it’s ultimately counter productive for him to do this. It’d be much better to let the Dems who aren’t on the ballot take up that fight. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tshile said:

At the moment I can’t help but feel that Biden should have stayed out of the scotus thing. Not that he shouldn’t comment at all, just I don’t think he should have gone to the point of dictating how it should happen. 
 

it’s an optics thing, and a question of what it all means for votes in the election, to me. I think it’s ultimately counter productive for him to do this. It’d be much better to let the Dems who aren’t on the ballot take up that fight. 

 

I think it's a tough call.  The counter argument would be that there really aren't any moderates left to be courted and the election will come down to turning out the base.  In which case, the liberal wing will want Biden to take a clear stance.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I think it's a tough call.  The counter argument would be that there really aren't any moderates left to be courted and the election will come down to turning out the base.  In which case, the liberal wing will want Biden to take a clear stance.


yeah it’s hardly straight forward. 
 

it’s just hard for me to look at this from the perspective of:

does this change anyone’s vote? Are there more people that weren’t going to vote for trump that will now, or more people that were going to vote for trump and won’t now? To me it’s would seem obvious the first is way more likely than the second. 
 

it doesn’t really matter if people who were going to vote for Biden are still going to vote for him, and same for trump. The question is does it change turnout/votes. One side was struggling to come up with a reason to support them, and the other side wasn’t struggling at all. It seems obvious to me there’s more to lose than to gain here. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tshile said:


yeah it’s hardly straight forward. 
 

it’s just hard for me to look at this from the perspective of:

does this change anyone’s vote? Are there more people that weren’t going to vote for trump that will now, or more people that were going to vote for trump and won’t now? To me it’s would seem obvious the first is way more likely than the second. 
 

it doesn’t really matter if people who were going to vote for Biden are still going to vote for him, and same for trump. The question is does it change turnout/votes. One side was struggling to come up with a reason to support them, and the other side wasn’t struggling at all. It seems obvious to me there’s more to lose than to gain here. 

 

The Dems are framing it perfectly. Listen to some of what AOC said and how this would negatively impact specific groups. Contrast that to the GOP that already has a conservative court. Is there argument going to be that they need this to strike down obamacare, which is popular?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think the swing voter cares about SCOTUS in a traditionally conservative way. These people are socially moderate, generally low to middle class, who care about their paycheck and healthcare. They’re relatively low information voters and are therefore susceptible to Trump’s bull**** about the economy and bringing back jobs. 
 

Biden has two advantages here: one is pointing out the blatant hypocrisy on the part of republicans between Garland and this vacancy. It’s not a good look. And early opinion polls support that. 
 

The second, the big one, is this helps Biden pivot the messaging to healthcare. This is a huge issue for a huge number of voters. He’ll hammer it during the debates. He’s running national ads on it now. There’s a pandemic going on and the Trump admin is arguing in front of the Supreme Court the week after the election to do away with preexisting condition protections. That is a simple concept and will really get through to those voters. 

Edited by skinsfan_1215
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

The Dems are framing it perfectly. Listen to some of what AOC said and how this would negatively impact specific groups. Contrast that to the GOP that already has a conservative court. Is there argument going to be that they need this to strike down obamacare, which is popular?

With the preface that I’ve hardly paid as much attention to this as most of you (busy weekend, not an excuse just reality, it is important to me just the way it worked out):

 

I haven’t seen all her comments but the comments I’ve seen from her and others are fine. And most of what I saw was fine/expected and I agree with lots of it. 
 

but I also saw some of Biden’s comments. The ones I’m particularly concerned about is where he dictated the terms of how this should work (paraphrasing: if I win the election than the nomination should be withdrawn and I should get to nominate someone)

 

it doesn’t matter to me that I would prefer that. Or that I think it’s the tight thing to do because of what they did to Obama at the end ( this whole move by McConnell took what could/should have been 1 Trump appointment, 1 obama appointment, and 1 Biden appointment, and turned it into 3 trump appointments. It’s brilliant strategy. Unethical, hypocritical, etc.  but brilliant strategy)

 

I think we sit on opposite sides of viewing what’s going on here. We’ve butted heads on this sort of topic before. I’m not saying I’m right you’re wrong, I just think we see things differently. 
 

if the left’s base needs to be riled up by this then holy **** are we screwed anyways. If by now (before her death) you can’t look at Biden’s potential supporters and feel comfortable you’ll get max reasonable turnout and they’ll vote for him, then holy **** the left’s base is more pathetic than I thought. So in my view it’s hard to see how this moves the needle in Biden’s favor. 
 

the other side has had little to champion from trump. Judges are about it. And here’s the most important one right before the election. Their base has been hit hard with a lot of things that could (and people responsible for knowing this have been saying this is the way it has been) drive down turnout and drive up apathy 

 

this conversation, and the way Biden is handling it, would seem (to me) to be just what the doctor ordered to try to inject some life into a campaign that was on life support. 

Edited by tshile
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hersh said:

This won't negatively impact Biden at all.

 

I think it will. I know many, many people who are conservatives who did not like Trump in 2016.  They voted for him solely on the potential Supreme Court justice seats. Republican leaders will frame  this as overturning Roe v Wade and those same folks who didn't like Trump in 2016 will find their way to him again here. I don't think Mitch will put this up before the election because it'll activate a base that wasn't very enthusiastic. This will do it no doubt. Dems now have to find even more people to vote that were already energized to vote Trump out. Who's left to energize at this point? 

Edited by Busch1724
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Busch1724 said:

 

I think it will. I know many, many people who are conservatives who did not like Trump in 2016.  They voted for him solely on the potential Supreme Court justice seats. Republican leaders will frame  this as overturning Roe v Wade and those same folks who didn't like Trump in 2016 will find their way to him again here. I don't think Mitch will put this up before the election because it'll activate a base that wasn't very enthusiastic. This will do it no doubt. Dems now have to find even more people to vote that were already energized to vote Trump out. Who's left to energize at this point? 

 

Anyone voting cause of the SC was already going to vote

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Riggo-toni said:

Yeah, and it was Nixon appointed justice Blackmun who swayed the court in favor of Roe.

 

The GOP only started caring about abortion in the late1970s when they wanted to court Catholics and socially conservative voters. They used to vote about evenly on it as Democrats did. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

I think it would surprise most "conservatives" that Roe v Wade was originally a GOP win at SCOTUS. A 7-2 vote. Rehnquist was the only conservative judge who dissented. 

 

After they catch the proverbial car that is Roe v. Wade, what other issue will they use to try to cudgel the so-called Christian right into toeing the line?  I wonder if we're gonna go back to gay marriage again. 🤔🙄

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

After they catch the proverbial car that is Roe v. Wade, what other issue will they use to try to cudgel the so-called Christian right into toeing the line?  I wonder if we're gonna go back to gay marriage again. 🤔🙄

 

American re-education camps.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

After they catch the proverbial car that is Roe v. Wade, what other issue will they use to try to cudgel the so-called Christian right into toeing the line?  I wonder if we're gonna go back to gay marriage again. 🤔🙄


then they’ll just run on “maintaining abortions illegality” and stopping Dems

from going back to murdering babies again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is a historically unpopular President and any event that even gives the illusion of greater power for him and his party is not to their benefit.

 

If Mitch seriously believed that another SC vacancy is to the benefit of the GOP, they would hold the vote in the lame duck session and bank on increased turnout on election day. But they won't and will vote ahead of it. They will get votes from Senators like Gardner/McSally because losing a few Senate seats or even Senate control is a worthy trade for a lifetime SCOTUS appointment.

 

They are also banking on Democrats being gigantic chickens if they do assume power, which isn't entirely a wrong calculation either. Whether Senators like Feinstein or Coons have the fortitude to radicalize and legislate with power and deliver for their base, rather than adhering to non-existent norms, is unknown.

 

GOP governing calculations rightfully account for Democratic ineptitude and timidity.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Rdskns2000 changed the title to Presidential Election: 11/3/20- Democracy’s Savior Joe vs Super Spreader Dictator Donald

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...