Biden won, it's over --- The Election Thread

[CameronBornAndBred]

New COVID cases running consistently 15% higher than a week ago.

It's going to keep climbing through Election Day. Trump obviously has no interest in being sane about it. (Or much else.)

[CameronBornAndBred]

We figured election participation would be big...but it looking massive.

In five states — including battleground Wisconsin and Minnesota — the number of ballots returned is more than 20% of the entire 2016 vote, according to McDonald’s tracking.

And I'm not sure how they designate these as Democratic vs Republican, but this is daunting for the Trump folks.

As of Sunday, registered Democrats returned 2.1 million mail ballots, more than double the 931,000 ballots that registered Republicans have cast, according to tracking by Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political science professor who analyzes early voting.

McDonald said this presidential election is the first in which Democrats are returning pre-Election Day ballots at a faster rate than Republicans.
...

A flood of mail-in ballots from Democratic voters are pouring into the mail and ballot collection boxes, overwhelming the number of GOP mail votes.

As of Sunday, registered Democrats returned 2.1 million mail ballots, more than double the 931,000 ballots that registered Republicans have cast, according to tracking by Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political science professor who analyzes early voting.

McDonald said this presidential election is the first in which Democrats are returning pre-Election Day ballots at a faster rate than Republicans.
...

The “massive Democratic head start” makes it “much more difficult for the Trump campaign to play catch up,.” Louisiana pollster John Couvillon, who tracks voter statistics, told The Hill. The Democratic Party is armed with information to target areas with lower mail-in turnout, he noted.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/democrat ... 55045.html

[dudog]

We figured election participation would be big...but it looking massive.

In five states — including battleground Wisconsin and Minnesota — the number of ballots returned is more than 20% of the entire 2016 vote, according to McDonald’s tracking.

And I'm not sure how they designate these as Democratic vs Republican, but this is daunting for the Trump folks.

As of Sunday, registered Democrats returned 2.1 million mail ballots, more than double the 931,000 ballots that registered Republicans have cast, according to tracking by Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political science professor who analyzes early voting.

McDonald said this presidential election is the first in which Democrats are returning pre-Election Day ballots at a faster rate than Republicans.
...

A flood of mail-in ballots from Democratic voters are pouring into the mail and ballot collection boxes, overwhelming the number of GOP mail votes.

As of Sunday, registered Democrats returned 2.1 million mail ballots, more than double the 931,000 ballots that registered Republicans have cast, according to tracking by Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political science professor who analyzes early voting.

McDonald said this presidential election is the first in which Democrats are returning pre-Election Day ballots at a faster rate than Republicans.
...

The “massive Democratic head start” makes it “much more difficult for the Trump campaign to play catch up,.” Louisiana pollster John Couvillon, who tracks voter statistics, told The Hill. The Democratic Party is armed with information to target areas with lower mail-in turnout, he noted.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/democrat ... 55045.html

Have the Ds gotten smart? It happens about every 12 years, so they're due.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I think I posted this OY, but it bears repeating. In many of the "battleground" states (such as PA, Wisconsin, Michigan), they cannot start counting any of these ballots until election day. So there is no way they will have them all counted by that evening. So no results will be available that evening. Which allows Trump to claim victory with no basis for doing so. Which is not good.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections ... begin.aspx

I have been listening to the ACB hearing while working this morning. It is amazing the two differing realities they sides are living in. Republicans keep going on and on about how the Judiciary is not there to legislate, but meanwhile, Trump very publicly said that being pro-life was his primary qualification for choosing a judge. I think the Dems are generally handling it pretty well - I don't think any minds are being changed.

I am also amazed that Lee is there despite failing a COVID test about a week ago. Tillis at least had the courtesy to speak remotely. Though speaking of Tillis, he came across as a total intellectual lightweight compared to all of the other speakers (of both parties). He sounded like he is campaigning for county commissioner, not the United States Senate.

[dudog]

I think I posted this OY, but it bears repeating. In many of the "battleground" states (such as PA, Wisconsin, Michigan), they cannot start counting any of these ballots until election day. So there is no way they will have them all counted by that evening. So no results will be available that evening. Which allows Trump to claim victory with no basis for doing so. Which is not good.

I expect Joe to do the same on election night. If this is the game, gotta play it to win.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I think I posted this OY, but it bears repeating. In many of the "battleground" states (such as PA, Wisconsin, Michigan), they cannot start counting any of these ballots until election day. So there is no way they will have them all counted by that evening. So no results will be available that evening. Which allows Trump to claim victory with no basis for doing so. Which is not good.

I expect Joe to do the same on election night. If this is the game, gotta play it to win.

I doubt he'll claim victory, but I do expect him to say something to the effect of "things are looking really good for us".

Seems that I read somewhere that neither is "allowed" to declare unless so stated by media and/or the higher ups running the election. Not that candidates have every disregarded those folks before...

[dudog]

I think I posted this OY, but it bears repeating. In many of the "battleground" states (such as PA, Wisconsin, Michigan), they cannot start counting any of these ballots until election day. So there is no way they will have them all counted by that evening. So no results will be available that evening. Which allows Trump to claim victory with no basis for doing so. Which is not good.

I expect Joe to do the same on election night. If this is the game, gotta play it to win.

I doubt he'll claim victory, but I do expect him to say something to the effect of "things are looking really good for us".

Seems that I read somewhere that neither is "allowed" to declare unless so stated by media and/or the higher ups running the election. Not that candidates have every disregarded those folks before...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hey Rip Van Winkle, where ya been the last 5 years?

(just messin' with ya)

Trump is going to declare victory the first red state he wins. (I'm probably not far off on that)

[CameronBornAndBred]

I expect Joe to do the same on election night. If this is the game, gotta play it to win.

I doubt he'll claim victory, but I do expect him to say something to the effect of "things are looking really good for us".

Seems that I read somewhere that neither is "allowed" to declare unless so stated by media and/or the higher ups running the election. Not that candidates have every disregarded those folks before...

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hey Rip Van Winkle, where ya been the last 5 years?

(just messin' with ya)

Trump is going to declare victory the first red state he wins. (I'm probably not far off on that)

Might not wait til the 3rd. Why not start off Monday by saying "I've won!"

[Phredd3]

I have been listening to the ACB hearing while working this morning.

I was, too, partly to watch her talk about her own family. As a parent of a child with Down Syndrome, you don't often see people in high-ranked positions who are in the same boat. Two things really struck me:

1. Of her immediate family, the only one who was not there in person was Ben, the child with Down Syndrome. Now, there may be perfectly good reasons why that maybe true. But it was very striking that there was only one exclusion in the entire family.

2. She mentioned a unique characteristic about every child in the family - except Ben. Her mention of him was only that he has Down Syndrome and that he is "the favorite" of the family, which doesn't say one thing about him as an individual.

I realize that I'm one of the few people who both watched the hearing and was paying attention to that part, but I have to say it really struck me in a very negative way. I wonder, based on that, what she would say about the ADA and IDEA and about school inclusion for private schools receiving public funds, which to my way of thinking should be very related to Roe v. Wade. It was a disappointing moment, to be sure.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I have been listening to the ACB hearing while working this morning.

I was, too, partly to watch her talk about her own family. As a parent of a child with Down Syndrome, you don't often see people in high-ranked positions who are in the same boat. Two things really struck me:

1. Of her immediate family, the only one who was not there in person was Ben, the child with Down Syndrome. Now, there may be perfectly good reasons why that maybe true. But it was very striking that there was only one exclusion in the entire family.

2. She mentioned a unique characteristic about every child in the family - except Ben. Her mention of him was only that he has Down Syndrome and that he is "the favorite" of the family, which doesn't say one thing about him as an individual.

I realize that I'm one of the few people who both watched the hearing and was paying attention to that part, but I have to say it really struck me in a very negative way. I wonder, based on that, what she would say about the ADA and IDEA and about school inclusion for private schools receiving public funds, which to my way of thinking should be very related to Roe v. Wade. It was a disappointing moment, to be sure.

Thank you for sharing your perspective - very interesting. I wrote off the youngest not being there to the fact that my kids, who are roughly that age, would not be able to sit through something like that, so they figured it wasn't worth trying - I was surprised the ones who went did as well as they did. Perhaps she could have held up a picture of him or something.

Interesting point about her not having a unique characteristic for Ben other than his Down Syndrome. It was clearly a scripted speech so that is a notable omission.

Though not too frequent, I also noted that she seemed to mention Trump's name more than necessary. She should be staying as far away from him as possible. I hope someone asks her about bringing all of her kids to Trump's party without masks. That doesn't show very good judgement.

I know there will be no compromising and it would never happen, particularly because she is getting confirmed no matter what, but it would be nice if perhaps she recused herself from the ACA case, since that is coming up so quickly.

[Phredd3]

Took a second to look in on the hearing. "Maskless Mike" Lee is rambling on and on - he's been going for at least five minutes without a pause - talking almost incoherently about policy. She's been cutting fine legal hairs all day and he goes off on this long, long tangent. They did a quick cut to ACB's face, and her expression was just priceless. "What the hell is this guy talking about, and am I supposed to be listening to this expecting a question?!?"

[CameronBornAndBred]

I have not watched any of the hearing, and intentionally did not watch the news last night. I probably won't tonight, either. The idea that they are even having a hearing is laughable.
The whole thing is a sham, just go ahead and vote her in now and be done with it.

[Phredd3]

I have not watched any of the hearing, and intentionally did not watch the news last night. I probably won't tonight, either. The idea that they are even having a hearing is laughable.
The whole thing is a sham, just go ahead and vote her in now and be done with it.

I hear you, and I'm just as pissed. But I do want to hear how she handles the whole thing. She's a smart lady, there's no doubt about that, and she has some admirable qualities. If we're going to be stuck with her, I want to know as much as I can.

But even I can't stomach the entire song and dance. When the intro to the whole hearing is, "This is probably not about persuading each other unless something really dramatic happens. All Republicans will vote yes, and all Democrats will vote no," well, what more is there, really?

[CameronBornAndBred]

A pair of polls that accurately predicted in 2016 that Donald Trump would win the election have released their predictions for the 2020 US election, and it does not bode well for Mr Trump.
.....

Both polls now predict that Mr Trump will lose the election.

On 12 Oct, the IBT poll predicted that Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden will beat Mr Trump by 8.5 percentage points. The USC poll predicted an even stronger victory, placing Mr Biden 13 percentage points ahead of Mr Trump.

OUCH!!
https://www.yahoo.com/news/polls-predic ... 18794.html

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I was partially listening much of the morning. The order is based on seniority so it started out with geriatric time. It is largely a pointless affair. She is very smart and can dodge the questions, and they are asking good but not great questions. I wish that instead of asking if she had spoken to Trump about her beliefs, they would restate it as "Trump or anyone who could be considered to be acting on his behalf, such as the XYZ conservative lobbying group, etc."

I commented yesterday on the legislating from the bench topic. I am noticing it even more today. Republicans keep talking about how the Dems want to legislate from the bench. Let's focus on ACA. Trump ran on getting rid of it. Most would agree that it is not perfect, but it is a very good start and it is better than nothing. He has had 3.5 years to come up with a better alternative. Rather than doing so, he is going to try to have the supreme court overturn it. That is about the most "legislate from the bench" thing I can even think of.

Following up on another topic, I have no idea why she is subjecting her children to this. Don't they have school to attend? I'm still waiting for the question about why she would bring her whole family to a maskless party at the White House.

[Phredd3]

I commented yesterday on the legislating from the bench topic. I am noticing it even more today. Republicans keep talking about how the Dems want to legislate from the bench. Let's focus on ACA. Trump ran on getting rid of it. Most would agree that it is not perfect, but it is a very good start and it is better than nothing. He has had 3.5 years to come up with a better alternative. Rather than doing so, he is going to try to have the supreme court overturn it. That is about the most "legislate from the bench" thing I can even think of.

I wish Democrats would be more forceful about what appellate judging actually is. In some sense, every single case is "legislating from the bench". Determining how the law applies in certain situations is about filling in the holes in the text. If the meaning of the text is really that clear in a particular case, the case never makes it past the district court level. Absolutely any case that is worth Supreme Court review is ambiguous in some way. Deciding that there is NOT a right to abortion implied in the language of the Constitution is legislating every bit as much as deciding that there IS such a right.

Anyone who thinks appellate judges don't make "new" law is just deceiving themselves. If the judges/Justices didn't need to decide something novel, they wouldn't be hearing the case.

And I agree about the kids. The first day, sure. Make a splash. Give the kids a real-life civics lesson. But the lesson has probably pretty much run its course at this point.

[dudog]

Well-respected polls out today with lots of good news for the Ds nationally, by state, and in the Senate.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

The day before the first debate, Joe's national lead was 7.0. Today it is 10.6.

There was some concern that the crowded D field in the one GA Senate jungle primary could lead to a run-off between the two Rs. Not gonna happen. And once Barrett is on the Supreme Court, and rules against the ACA, and they start going after Roe v. Wade, that run-off election between Warnock and the generic R is going to be a blast.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I'm going to be camping tomorrow night, no wifi, not much of a phone signal, so I definitely won't be watching either town hall. (In fact I'm going to be out in a field with my telescopes, so even better.)

I'm not bummed out about that.

I do think it's moronic for NBC to agree to have Trump's town hall at the same time as Biden's. The pundits are going to have headaches trying to sift through both at once for their post-commentaries.

[dudog]

The Great Barrier Reef has lost half it's coral in the past 25 years. Horrific.

https://weather.com/science/environment ... -its-coral

Those of you under 40, or who have children/grandchildren, this should be the only issue that matters to you. Unfortunately, even if the U.S. does its part and more, it matters little if the rest of the world does not pitch in. Especially when China and India have almost 40% of the world population.

[Phredd3]

The Great Barrier Reef has lost half it's coral in the past 25 years. Horrific.

https://weather.com/science/environment ... -its-coral

Those of you under 40, or who have children/grandchildren, this should be the only issue that matters to you. Unfortunately, even if the U.S. does its part and more, it matters little if the rest of the world does not pitch in. Especially when China and India have almost 40% of the world population.

We aren't meeting the conditional, so I'd phrase it this way: It doesn't matter what the rest of the world does if we don't do our part and more.