US Presidential Debate: Page 2 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

US Presidential Debate

Qwiss

She'll appoint pro-business justices that are nice to gays and people will call them liberal.

mdgoonah41

obama has appointed moderate justices, and i imagine hillary would do the same. if the dems don't win back the senate, she'll have to appoint moderates. i could see one liberal further to the left being added though

flobaba

Meatwad wrote:
if this election goes right we could be looking at a liberal supreme court until 2050. with a liberal supreme court they might even go after the ridiculous partisan gerrymandering that goes on that allows the state party in power to basically draw up districts that are pretty damn unconstitutional. they violate the right of citizens to equal protection under the law. fix that and they don't even have congress anymore because while democrats in blue states draw these bullshit districts as well they don't gain the kind of advantage from it that republicans do.

Still can't fathom how the Democrats let that shit happen right under their noses.

mdgoonah41

this was a nice article last summer that talked about gerrymandering, while we're on the subject

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/6/29/1394141/-Republicans-rigged-the-House-through-gerrymandering-Democrats-can-fight-back-at-the-ballot-box

Meatwad

flobaba wrote:
Meatwad wrote:
if this election goes right we could be looking at a liberal supreme court until 2050. with a liberal supreme court they might even go after the ridiculous partisan gerrymandering that goes on that allows the state party in power to basically draw up districts that are pretty damn unconstitutional. they violate the right of citizens to equal protection under the law. fix that and they don't even have congress anymore because while democrats in blue states draw these bullshit districts as well they don't gain the kind of advantage from it that republicans do.

Still can't fathom how the Democrats let that shit happen right under their noses.

what could they do to stop it? that's looked upon as one of the spoils of victory. the problem was that democratic turnout was abysmal in 2010 and the tea party foolishness was in full swing ... and most importantly that was a census year. like i said both parties do it, but like most things the D's don't go as extreme as the R's so as long as it's allowed the net benefit is in the R's favor.

mdgoonah41

this election is obviously going to be fascinating for a lot of reasons, but the biggest thing to me is going to be how the RNC approaches the entire election, not just the president.

normally, you support the presidential candidate, and his popularity or appeal trickles down, which helps those running for the senate, the house, and then the governors races statewide. in this case, the RNC hates trump, the support and enthusiasm has been tepid at best, and notable politicians up for re-election/running to get into government are distancing themselves from trump.

the RNC could basically go nuclear, punt the white house for 4 years, and make a huge push to keep the senate and keep their margin in the house. if they spread themselves thin or if their support for trump hurts the downballot candidates, it could be a huge disaster.

here is a quick summary:

senate - currently 54-44-2 (both independents caucus with the dems, so its really 54-46)

up for grabs seats: republicans 24, democrats 10
retiring: republicans 3 (IN, LA, FL), democrats 3 (CA, MD, NV)

only reid's seat in nevada is really considered a battleground race at this point. 5 of the republican senate seats are considered battleground races (FL, IL, NH, PA, WI)

democrats gained an average of 5 senate seats in the last 2 presidential election year cycles. republicans do better in mid-term elections.

house: 246-188-1
retiring: 20 republicans, 9 democrats

dems obviously have almost no chance to swing the house back, but they can put a dent in the republicans' majority. they'd need 30 seats to swing it. not impossible, but close to impossible. if the dems could win 15-18 seats, they'd be in a position to build some strength for the mid-term in 2018.

higher voter turnout has historically favored democrats. if trump continues to alienate women and minorities and it leads to a huge turnout, this could be an election for the books. there is even talk about clinton possibly winning utah, which has gone republican for something like 13 straight presidential elections.

wild

ElGeniodeOviedo

Republican advantage in the House goes beyond gerrymandering, it's increasingly due to the concentration of democrats/left leaning voters in urban areas and the coasts. This results in a disproportionate number of districts where the Dems dominate but also creates many 60/40 Republican districts in the suburbs and exurbs

flobaba

mdgoonah41

wowsers

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/20/donald-trump-campaign-manager-corey-lewandowski-out

On Monday morning, the news came as a surprise to many in the Trump campaign. One high-ranking source told the Guardian: “I have no idea what’s going on.” Others said the news had not been shared internally and they were learning of the shakeup through the media.

fantastic.

Meatwad

mdgoonah41 wrote:
obama has appointed moderate justices, and i imagine hillary would do the same. if the dems don't win back the senate, she'll have to appoint moderates. i could see one liberal further to the left being added though

if obama's appointees are considered moderate, i can't wait until we get some liberal appointees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/supreme-court-says-police-may-use-evidence-found-after-illegal-stops.html

his appointees aren't some mealy mouth middle the road split the difference justices. they generally hold it down on issues i care about.

innervisionscm

Sotomayor is good. This guy Garland that Obama recently tried to appoint to is very moderate. Democrats are such a weak and spineless bunch. People overrate the Supreme Court anyway.

Meatwad

there are two obama justices on the supreme court and they both have an excellent voting record and were talked about as being moderate when nominated, so i'll give him the benefit of the doubt with garland because he's 2/2 so far.

and i'm sure a 5-3 decision in favor of law enforcement in the link above doesn't mean anything to you because you're probably not going to be harassed by them anyway. but i certainly would care if it was 5-3 the other way. the supreme court is underrated if anything because people don't give it enough consideration when voting.

Qwiss

I agree with Meatwad SCOTUS is under rated if anything. Most social reform or lack of it comes through it. An awful lot of really important shit happens there. It really shapes the US. Probably more than most presidents do directly.

mdgoonah41

the supreme court has long been one of my interests, even going back to college when my main interests were drinking and girls, because at one point i thought i was going to law school and i wanted to study constitutional law more than anything. i try to remind my friends that the court matters all the time, not just when there is a landmark case or when a justice dies or retires.

sotomayor and kagan were both moderate though obviously left leaning, and both have been excellent justices for the left in what has been a conservative court. a 5-4 liberal court completely changes the game, of course, especially since kennedy is still going to lean left on a lot of the hot button social issues.

mdgoonah41

is this also the US politics thread?

Coombs

Some of these tools are really selling themselves short. Don't they know what their votes are worth, ffs?

mdgoonah41

i cant wait for shitheel pat toomey to get voted out of office this year. im actually thinking of volunteering for the dems to help the cause

Coombs

He's such a fucking chump. Pennsylvania really produces some horrible senators.

Meatwad

Qwiss! wrote:
I agree with Meatwad SCOTUS is under rated if anything. Most social reform or lack of it comes through it. An awful lot of really important shit happens there. It really shapes the US. Probably more than most presidents do directly.

and even if a president and congress get favorable legislation enacted, the supreme court has the power to make all that null and void or cement it.

mdgoonah41

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/scrawny-trump-campaign-sputters-into-general-224580

Donald Trump's campaign started the month with a paltry $1.3 million in cash — a mere fraction of Hillary Clinton's $42.5 million war chest — putting the GOP frontrunner at a sharp disadvantage heading into the general election against Clinton's money machine.

On the same day that Trump fired his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, amid a steady stream of reports of campaign infighting and disorganization, the latest batch of Federal Election Commission filings show that the real estate mogul has a long way to go to establish a financial operation that can compete at the national level.

And it's not just money — the filings revealed a campaign staff of less than 70, a number was dwarfed by Clinton's nearly 700 paid employees, and few of the campaign's expenses suggested work had begun to build out a more robust operation. All together, it's the most lopsided fundraising start to a presidential election in the modern campaign finance era.

The filings detail campaign finances covering the month of May, during which Trump locked up the GOP nomination after the May 3 Indiana primary. Republicans had hoped that Trump’s clearing of the field would prompt their donors to rally behind their presumptive nominee and allow him to close the gap with Clinton’s campaign, which was still struggling to finish off primary rival Bernie Sanders.

Instead, the campaign showed no clear path for improving its financial picture. Trump raised just $3.1 million from donors (including almost $2 million in amounts less than $200) and lent his campaign another $2.2 million, though he said he won't continue self-funding through the general election.Trump has now loaned his campaign a total of $45.7 million, almost exactly the same amount that Mitt Romney loaned his 2008 campaign for the GOP presidential nomination.

Unlike Romney, who mostly downplayed his wealth, Trump’s boasts about his wealth and his willingness to self-finance his campaign were a central part of his message during the primary. Trump castigated his primary opponents for being beholden to big donors, and called out the donors as puppet masters.

So when Trump decided that he would seek to raise outside money for his own election, the reversal was awkward, not the least of which because he had failed to assemble a finance operation for his skeletal operation.

Though his campaign trimmed spending from $9.4 million in April to $6.7 million in May, it finished May with just $1.3 million cash on hand. By contrast, the Clinton campaign ended the month with $42.5 million in the tank. Even the defunct campaigns of Ted Cruz and Ben Carson had more cash on hand than Trump's.

In fact, several House members running for reelection have more cash on hand than Trump's campaign. Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) had $3 million, Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) reported $2.2 million, Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) each reported about $1.8 million, and Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) had $1.4 million.

l
m
a
o

« Previous Page Next Page »