Presidential Election: 11/3/20 ---Now the President Elect Joe Biden Thread

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1 hour ago, Rdskns2000 said:

The race probably boils down to Kamala vs Elizabeth. 

 

I expect the field to drastically shrink after tonight's and tommorrow's debates. 

The minor candidates are going to find the money drying up and they probably don't even qualify for the third debate in September.  I expect the field to be cut in half by September/October.

 

Only 7 have qualified so far. It'll probably be a 10 person debate by September. 

9 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

From this article:

Quote

Let’s face it, Beto O'Rourke bombed in Miami.

But if anyone knows what it’s like to be on a magic-carpet-ride upward trajectory, it’s O’Rourke. Debate stages have never been his strongest setting, but he needs to remind Americans who were fans during his 2018 Senate bid in Texas what they saw in the former congressman.

 

Quote

Buttigieg, whose Iowa crowds have been far larger—and who is leading Klobuchar by several points in the state—was the only one of the 10 candidates to get a standing ovation at a recent candidate cattle call there. He says he can win in Trump states, and he’ll have to prove it in Iowa.

 

Quote

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has been playing his hits from 2016, which is why the 11 minutes he spoke in the last debate may not have felt so fresh. He’s also been mired in a labor dispute with his campaign staff, and he could use the positive press from a breakout night

 

Real edge of your seat analysis there

[Rufus T Firefly]

So, half of the combatants the next two nights look like they have no shot at the September debate(s), and a couple need to do a little work. Will be interesting to see if this leads to some hail marys being thrown.

 

Much more interesting, of course, is how the 4 with a real shot at winning do. 

[@DCGoldPants]

58 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

 

This is what some of us have been saying for a while. If you want to force the issue, take it to the state level. Cali isn't going to make a difference. But can you get something like this in Pennsylvania? 

 

 

[NoCalMike]

If it passes and is held up by the courts in one state, that means ultimately it likely ends up in front of the supreme court I would assume?

[techboy]

44 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

This is what some of us have been saying for a while. If you want to force the issue, take it to the state level. Cali isn't going to make a difference. But can you get something like this in Pennsylvania? 

 

 

 

Actually, California COULD make a difference if this holds up, because this is about the PRIMARY, not the general election. That's a lot of delegates up for grabs to a challenger, especially if other states follow suit.

[twa]

It would be interesting to see if the state could impose the rule on a party

[LadySkinsFan]

The Constitution leaves how elections are conducted up to the states. 

 

I fully expect the Supreme Republican Court to support Republicans in all things.

4 minutes ago, twa said:

It would be interesting to see if the state could impose the rule on a party

 

Not just one party, all candidates.

[techboy]

Just now, LadySkinsFan said:

The Constitution leaves how elections are conducted up to the states. 

 

It's not really an election in that sense, though. People often forget it, but technically the parties can nominate anyone they want, any way they want. That's why they can have caucuses. They really could just skip the whole process and pick someone. I suspect the only reason they don't is it would look bad, but the parties are not enshrined in the Constitution.

 

Which is why I suspect if this were to hold up the Republicans might just switch methods.

[Bozo the kKklown]

2 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

Real edge of your seat analysis there

Our media is an embarrassment lol.

[Rufus T Firefly]

33 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

The Constitution leaves how elections are conducted up to the states. 

 

Except when it hurts Republicans, a la Florida, 2000.

 

Edit: meaning that's how the kinds of justices we have now choose to interpret said Constitution, not that the Constitution actually says any such thing, obviously. 

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Rufus T Firefly said:

So, half of the combatants the next two nights look like they have no shot at the September debate(s), and a couple need to do a little work. Will be interesting to see if this leads to some hail marys being thrown.

 

Much more interesting, of course, is how the 4 with a real shot at winning do. 

 

Keep recalling a comment made during the last quarter of an NFL preseason game 4.  Some player just made what looked like a really good play.  

 

Commentator:  Yeah, but remember.  Two weeks from now, half of these people are going to be working for UPS.  

 

1 hour ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

This is what some of us have been saying for a while. If you want to force the issue, take it to the state level. Cali isn't going to make a difference. But can you get something like this in Pennsylvania? 

 

Whether it counts or not, I'd be entertained by the sight of lawyers for the Birther in Chief arguing in court that states cannot demand that Presidential candidates provide supplementary documents as a condition for being on the ballot.  

 

[PleaseBlitz]

Wait, there is going to be a GOP primary next year?  News to me. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Wait, there is going to be a GOP primary next year?  News to me. 

[PleaseBlitz]

Who is that?

[tshile]

You think this scotus would uphold a requirement to release taxes?

 

lol

[Rufus T Firefly]

5 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Who is that?

How dare you! The man is running a solid second place in the GOP nomination battle. Once he starts cutting into that 72 point gap, you'll know his name for sure. 

[twa]

Just now, tshile said:

You think this scotus would uphold a requirement to release taxes?

 

lol

 

They might like the idea of adding requirements/qualifications

[NoCalMike]

3 minutes ago, twa said:

 

They might like the idea of adding requirements/qualifications

 

I was going to bring that up.  The problem with special requirements/qualifications is the chance this opens it up for other states to start putting in requirements that target specific parties.   The tax return thing is obviously targeting Trump itself, but I am not sure I like the idea of states being able to just arbitrarily say "you have to do this or this and this" in order to be on a ballot.  We have pretty clear cut election law that states what makes you "qualified" to run which was originally designed in a loose enough way to where anyone could potentially run.  Obviously for certain reasons we have gotten away from that principle, but I am not sure if adding restrictions or new qualifications necessarily address the issue from the right angle. 

[Rufus T Firefly]

10 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

I was going to bring that up.  The problem with special requirements/qualifications is the chance this opens it up for other states to start putting in requirements that target specific parties.   The tax return thing is obviously targeting Trump itself, but I am not sure I like the idea of states being able to just arbitrarily say "you have to do this or this and this" in order to be on a ballot.  We have pretty clear cut election law that states what makes you "qualified" to run which was originally designed in a loose enough way to where anyone could potentially run.  Obviously for certain reasons we have gotten away from that principle, but I am not sure if adding restrictions or new qualifications necessarily address the issue from the right angle. 

I'm with you on that. Requiring tax returns is a good idea, but states instituting their own rules to keep people off the ballot sets a precedent that is sure to be abused in short order. 

[visionary]

 

[Forehead]

So I'm going to go ahead and say this DNC guy is not really inspiring.  

[Riggo-toni]

3 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Who is that?

William Weld, the guy I most want for President, and have felt so for years.

If you wonder what kind of a stranglehold theocrats have over the GOP, consider the following:

One Massachusetts governor takes over an economic and fiscal disaster left in the wake of Dukakis, cuts taxes and spending, turns the economy around, and is subsequently blackballed by Jesse Helms for supporting gay rights and medical marijuana.

The other gets elected on Weld's coattails, hikes taxes back up, finishes 49th in job growth and leaves office with a 35% approval rating...but reversed his stance on stem cell research and abortion and gay marriage, and thus becomes the GOP candidate for President.

[88Comrade2000]

I suspect tomorrow's debate will be the one with the fireworks.  

[Renegade7]

Part of me doesn't even want to watch this, I'm going to be so pissed if it turns into a competition to say crazy stuff to stay relevant.

 

This just goes to show there's too many of them, it was polite to try and shake everyone's hand on the stage, but then when there was too many of them they gave up.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

Tim Ryan’s ashes still at the podium speaking