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
Impeachment can be for anything or nothing. It's a political thing, not a criminal thing, so there are no standard of evidence or anything beyond "do you think this person should be removed from the office they hold?". But just like impeaching the president, impeaching a SCOTUS justice requires a simple majority vote by the House (to initiate the trial) and a two-thirds majority vote by the Senate (to remove them from office). Which means it's not happening, even if the Democrats manage to take control of the Senate.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I feel like court-packing is terrible at being a solution rather than a band-aid, though. Something like term limits would be way better.
Again, that no one is mentioning it.
And while people may have been saying it's expected that the polls would tighten, honestly I'm not entirely sure I understand why, given how many people's minds are made up and the ton of voting already going on. The most likely explanation is probably that Republicans who were depressed by the one-two punch at the start of the month are coming back home now that Trump has managed to have a debate where he didn't look like a raving lunatic, but that's speculation.
![]()
Term-limits is not a practical solution because it requires a constitutional amendment. Unless you can conjure up the Republicans willing to vote for it, it's a completely nonviable path.
I would say there is no reason to report on every minor shift in the polls before we know whether it's noise or actual movement. Biden still has a +9% national average, I certainly wouldn't describe that as tightening.
Edited by nova92 on Oct 24th 2020 at 7:08:06 AM
Polls have tightened with the 538 average because it operates slightly differently after a debate, it starts discounting older polls quicker to try and capture any Raipur change from the debate.
So going into post-debate mode made it cut a bunch of older Biden +12/13 polls, thus bringing the average down a point.
Edited by Silasw on Oct 24th 2020 at 2:15:08 PM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThey have enough of a conscience to not impeach Democrats willy nilly, at least. For all the terrible things they do, they do work within the rules, even if they abuse loopholes while doing it.
And while impeachment is a political process, you still need to have some reasoning behind it to placate the populace. And just removing them because they are the opposite party would be so blatantly autocratic that not even the Republicans will touch that.
As horrible as they are, there are lines they will not cross.
Edited by Redmess on Oct 24th 2020 at 4:16:45 PM
Hope shines brightest in the darkest timesIf the polling average tightens by like 4 or 5 points close to the election, that's when I'd be concerned. But honestly I find that very unlikely unless something very major and unexpected happens. Trump doesn't have enough time to make up the difference.
![]()
![]()
![]()
I mean, fuck Republican obstructionism to be sure, but I don't like the idea of ruling out even trying to pass a constitutional amendment here (especially since it's been decades since one was attempted anyway). US history has had way too many fundamental structural flaws get patched over instead of actually addressed, and the Supreme Court is particularly bad because the apolitical model the founders envisioned has arguably never actually existed.
Like, I don't think it's something that has any chance unless the court does something blatantly undemocratic. But it bothers me that the overwhelming majority of people talking about reform have defaulted to court-packing without even mentioning term limits.
Edited by nrjxll on Oct 24th 2020 at 9:23:26 AM
What evidence do you have to back this assertion up? Republicans openly talked about a day 1 impeachment for Hillary if she won.[1]
[2]
They certainly would impeach and remove every Democrat justice if they had the majorities for it. They’ve already packed multiple state supreme-courts and were planning to shrink the Supreme Court if Hillary had won.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI'm not too worried about a conservative Court. Anything the overturn can be fixed with appropriate legislation. Obama care is doing fine even without an individual mandate. A democratic Congress can add incentives to encourage more people to sign up. Medicare and Medicaid are obviously not unconstitutional so extending those program to more people isn't going to be overturned. With abortion, the danger is that conservative states will pass restrictive legislation, and the Court, which has previously struck those laws down, will stop doing that. The same is true for gay rights. But again, Congress can pass new legislation that places greater restrictions on what states can do, and there is nothing unconstitutional about that.
The one thing even the most conservative justices wont do is weaken the Supreme Court itself, since their own power and position depends on that. That's why the SC rarely makes any decision, either way, without firm legal precedent, because legal precedent is the source of most of their influence and power. The real problem with conservative courts is that the decisions they do make are hard to reverse, for those very reasons. That's why Citizens United is such a barrier now. That will take an amendment to change, but don't give up yet.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Like, I don't think it's something that has any chance unless the court does something blatantly undemocratic. But it bothers me that the overwhelming majority of people talking about reform have defaulted to court-packing without even mentioning term limits.
Because it's not practical. In any way shape or form. A constitutional amendment requires 3/4 of state legislatures to pass it, and 2/3 of state legs. or 2/3 of both the House and the Senate to even present it. You give me the names of the 13 or so Republican Senators, the 60 or so Republican representatives, and the 10-ish Republican controlled states that will even consider taking up term-limits, and I'll start giving it serious thought.
Maybe, if Democrats start packing the courts, Republicans will be willing to put structural reforms in place. But they certainly won't while they currently have the overwhelming advantage. Why would they?
Edited by nova92 on Oct 24th 2020 at 8:26:13 AM
This is interesting to me, because if you have an issue with Wyoming (currently least populous state) having the same representation in the Senate as California (as I imagine most people in this thread do), then the argument for why it's better for Guam, which has a population of like a third of Wyoming is a strange one.
That's not getting into the just the assumption that Guam (or Puerto Rico, for that matter) would be safely Democratic.
I actually do believe him when he says he wouldn't have done it if he thought it would seriously affect the election. For however little that's worth.
...Though that's also the single biggest reason why "Biden is likely to win" narratives are so nervewrecking for me.
A quick search suggests there isn't anything nearly at the level of the Puerto Rico statehood movement.
Edited by nrjxll on Oct 24th 2020 at 9:42:50 AM
"The most likely explanation is probably that Republicans who were depressed by the one-two punch at the start of the month are coming back home now that Trump has managed to have a debate where he didn't look like a raving lunatic, but that's speculation."
That's been the belief of the hosts of Pod Save America. "Soft Republicans" who were wavering on voting for Trump got the excuse they needed to vote for him when he showed up at the debate and didn't behave like a deranged orangutan on cocaine. Them and Republican leaning independents are suspected to make up a majority of the ostensibly undecided voters but they were always going to come back home when the race came near the end.
But even a Fox pollster whose focus group of undecided voters favored Trump after the debate said there wasn't enough of these people for Trump to actually pull ahead.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
My stance on it is that it's two separate issues. DC + the 5 island territories should get representation and be made into states, if (very big IF) that is the desire of the people living there. Distinct from that, the Senate/Electoral College are anti-democratic institutions and should be (edit) reformed/abolished, respectively, but the non-representative nature of them now shouldn't be the reason to deny any representation to the people living there. The two problems should be tackled simultaneously.
Edit: Ideally, DC and the rest (that want it) would be states AND citizens in California and DC would have the same amount of voting power.
(And whether DC + island territories should be states or not should absolutely be separate from whether they would be Democratic or Republican.)
Edited by nova92 on Oct 24th 2020 at 9:17:09 AM
I think this is fair and reasonable, I'm just noted how they often aren't, and certain people don't seem to notice the contradiction when they think it will favor them. Which, again, isn't even a given.
For Puerto Rico, in particular, it is not a given that it'll be safe for Democrats. But that by itself is not a reason to go against self-determination for them, if the majority want statehood.
I personally am inclined to trust the polls on this one, because, as has already been established, Trump was within the normal margin of error for a polling average last time around; furthermore, in the British GE last year, myself and a lot of other people made the mistake of thinking 'because Trump pulled off an upset win despite being behind in the polls, maybe this means Labour can pull it off too', and to say this didn't happen doesn't sufficiently describe how much they lost.
This doesn't mean I think a Biden victory is guaranteed, it just means that if Trump wins I'll be much more inclined to think the GOP cheated somehow. :V
Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!Last time it was Republicans who were angry, and would have voted for anybody who had a chance to beat Hillary Clinton. This time around, it's the Democrats who are angry, and would vote for anyone who could beat Trump. Historically, the side with the most motivated voters carry the majority of the independents with them.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.

Yes.
Do not obey in advance.