Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
There's going to be a huge skew in early voting/voting by mail towards democrats in this election based on current polls, and that's the area of our election infrastructure that's in danger of buckling. If nonstandard voting for the general election turns out as poorly as it has in other elections during the pandemic, it could be really, really close.
![]()
The thing is, 2012 Nate Silver is the guy who had mostly focused on sports, where the available statistics do well describe the problem domain.
Moving into full political analysis introduces you to all sorts of problems with unrepresentative sampling and external factors that aren't captured by polling. Hence moving to a simulation approach which allows for uncertainty.
It's annoying, I suppose, the polls-only description of the presidential race isn't provided, but we can compare with the Senate forecast to get a gist of how hesitant it is.
You are, there’s no such thing as interim president (outside of a president temporarily surrendering the powers of the office by choice, such as when they have surgery). If the speaker becomes president than that’s it, they’re president until either they resign or the next election.
The entire scenario is incredibly out there anyway, it requires the election to be close enough that Republicans can pull a Florida 2000, which required not just a favourable Supreme Court ruling but also a Republican Governor in the relevant swing state (who in 2000 happened to be the brother of the Republican presidential candidate).
The biggest defence against a repeat of Florida 2000 is the fact that Dems control the governorships in the mid-west.
Edited by Silasw on Sep 23rd 2020 at 7:23:23 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThis is wrong. The Presidential Succession Act specifically mentions anyone outside of the vice president ascending to the role of president is only in an "acting" role until the next president is elected in a special election.
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."Here's Wikipedia's entry on it:
Wikipedia: Acting president of the United States
So Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK) walked back her earlier statement, says she can't rule out voting for Trump's Supreme Court pick
Edited by nova92 on Sep 23rd 2020 at 4:27:05 AM
Say it with me now: Murkowski is a coward. Especially now with Romney and, I think, Collins on board, she's shifted her tune from "Hmm, I dunno, maybe I won't" to "Hmm, I dunno, maybe I will" to see which gives her more support now that she's not in danger of actually making a difference.
It's been fun.The court has an odd number to stop this from occuring, but whenever there is an even number of justices (like now when one has died, or if in a certain case one of the justices recuses themselves due to conflict of interest) and there's a tie then it counts as affirming the lower court's decision.
So to get this straight, this guy working at the NIH as a public affairs officer moonlighted as a conservative blogger, accusing his own company and colleagues being part of a left wing anti-Trump conspiracy. And since he is in charge of public affairs, he would be the one promoting that "conspiratorial message". Talk about working both sides...
Edited by Redmess on Sep 23rd 2020 at 2:12:28 PM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesThe only 'hope' (and its a faint one) is that the Anti-Trump Republicans in the Senate have given up on stopping the Turtle from holding the vote before the election, he's going to call for it, he's the Majority Leader and has that power. But they can still either abstain from voting or vote 'no'
Which leads to the question, can they try again with the same person or once the Senate declines to confirm or that's it no do-overs, they need to start over with the next name on the list?
Facebook is giving the US the same treatment as various unstable and corrupt democracies around the world, in other words.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
I'll believe it when I see it. Facebook's will to actually combat misinformation this election has been nil and their efforts have been pretty worthless.
The only 'hope' (and its a faint one) is that the Anti-Trump Republicans in the Senate have given up on stopping the Turtle from holding the vote before the election, he's going to call for it, he's the Majority Leader and has that power. But they can still either abstain from voting or vote 'no'
It might have been possible if some of them hadn't said anything and tried to slip under the radar or something, but all but 4 Senators have come out in favor of the nomination, and none of them are what I'd consider Anti-Trump.
I'd imagine it's never come up before, trying to reconfirm a justice that's already been rejected, so don't know what'll happen there.
The Hill: Democrats shoot down talk of expanding Supreme Court
The title's a bit misleading though, the only one who's really come out against it is Dianne Feinstein (CA). Almost everyone else cited seems to think that the talk should wait until after the election.
Edited by nova92 on Sep 23rd 2020 at 5:36:09 AM
I'd imagine it's never come up before, trying to reconfirm a justice that's already been rejected, so don't know what'll happen there.
It has! Roger Taney was originally rejected by the Senate as the opposition party was in control and he'd participated in an attack on the National Bank they didn't like. After the next election, another opening came up, and he was re-nominated. As the new Senate was more amenable to the president, Taney was confirmed. (We now know Taney best for Dred Scott but he had a long career in the Supreme Court with many sound decisions as well.)
So basically if Trump's pick gets rejected he can't get them through again until after the election and the new Senate is sworn in. He'll need to wait until he gets re-elected and until the Senate is in place then he can try again.
Or he moves down the list to the next name, wash/rinse/repeat until the election.

My problem with Silver...his model this time is just bizarre. He's factoring in polls that are good for Biden to lower the average because "uncertainty" and taking into account the size of New York Times headlines. 2012 Nate Silver, I think, would be stunned by 2020 Silver when he used to be the guy who just took the polling averages and that was that.
I think the Dems might overperform a bit here. Certainly don't underestimate the rage Democrats might have towards this Supreme court play after Garland.