is Hillary setting up to take over from Biden??

inmyopinion wrote:is Biden done for??

Tommy Monk wrote:


It will be so funny if Trump wins again!




when he wins again.

Tommy Monk wrote:


It will be so funny if Trump wins again!

Original Quill wrote:Who is Hillay?  Do you mean Hillary?  Hillary Clinton is yesterday's news.

Trump is woefully behind in the race for President.

By the terms of the Constitution, if Biden dies or is otherwise incapacitated in office, Vice-President Harris will assume the office of President.

inmyopinion wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Who is Hillay?  Do you mean Hillary?  Hillary Clinton is yesterday's news.

Trump is woefully behind in the race for President.

By the terms of the Constitution, if Biden dies or is otherwise incapacitated in office, Vice-President Harris will assume the office of President.

is Trump that far behind. wow.

Original Quill wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

is Trump that far behind. wow.

12-points, nationally.  The important states to watch are Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida.  If he loses any of those, he's cooked.  Right now, he's way behind in Michigan and Pennsylvania, and even trailing by some 1-2 points in Florida.

inmyopinion wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Who is Hillay?  Do you mean Hillary?  Hillary Clinton is yesterday's news.

Trump is woefully behind in the race for President.

By the terms of the Constitution, if Biden dies or is otherwise incapacitated in office, Vice-President Harris will assume the office of President.

is Trump that far behind. wow.

Ben Reilly wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

is Trump that far behind. wow.

Eight points behind, which was about how badly the Republican candidate was doing against Bill Clinton in the 1996 election.

Ben Reilly wrote:He was behind by 2 points on election day 2016. There were wild swings back then, but Biden's lead is much more consistent from month to month.

Nobody knew what Trump would do if he won in 2016 (which he did, despite being beaten by Hillary by 3 million votes in the popular vote). Now people have four years of Trump's disasters to inform their decision.

I'm going to laugh so hard when Biden wipes the floor with Trump, and my first post here will be addressed to you ... I can't wait!

inmyopinion wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:He was behind by 2 points on election day 2016. There were wild swings back then, but Biden's lead is much more consistent from month to month.

Nobody knew what Trump would do if he won in 2016 (which he did, despite being beaten by Hillary by 3 million votes in the popular vote). Now people have four years of Trump's disasters to inform their decision.

I'm going to laugh so hard when Biden wipes the floor with Trump, and my first post here will be addressed to you ... I can't wait!

good for you and I will do the same but laugh a lot harder and a lot longer.

Ben Reilly wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:
good for you and I will do the same but laugh a lot harder and a lot longer.

Should we have a bet? Winner gets to change the loser's username for two weeks -- nothing vulgar, of course. That's two weeks after the winner of the election is known, because I expect the Trumpies Brigade to sue, sue, sue. Actually, I expect them to hurt a lot of people as well.

inmyopinion wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Eight points behind, which was about how badly the Republican candidate was doing against Bill Clinton in the 1996 election.

I forget how far was he behind the last time he won and how many said he had no chance?

Original Quill wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

I forget how far was he behind the last time he won and how many said he had no chance?

Um...hate to rain on your parade.  But if we are counting votes, Trump lost in 2016...by about 3-million votes.

Ben Reilly wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:
good for you and I will do the same but laugh a lot harder and a lot longer.

Should we have a bet? Winner gets to change the loser's username for two weeks -- nothing vulgar, of course. That's two weeks after the winner of the election is known, because I expect the Trumpies Brigade to sue, sue, sue. Actually, I expect them to hurt a lot of people as well.

inmyopinion wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

I forget how far was he behind the last time he won and how many said he had no chance?

Um...hate to rain on your parade.  But if we are counting votes, Trump lost in 2016...by about 3-million votes.

oh yeah I remember that, tell me again why he is President.lol

Eilzel wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

oh yeah I remember that, tell me again why he is President.lol

Electoral college. Do you know what that is?

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

oh yeah I remember that, tell me again why he is President.lol

Electoral college. Do you know what that is?

Yeah, Trump managed to win a handful of states that he was trailing in by 2-3 points.  He won several of those by about 1%.

If you give him 3 points in those states today, he still loses.  

Nationally hes down about 10 points. With the EC, you can win the election with slightly fewer votes.  But hes well short of a y figure that will get him a victory.

It's going to be over pretty quick that night.  The big question is if the Republicans can keep the Senate.  I'm thinking many of them will be dragged down with Trump. And of course it will be interesting to watch Trump the next two months after the election, before Biden is sworn in. No telling what sort of nonsense he can get into for those two months.  

Original Quill wrote:He's going to attempt to tie up the results in court, hoping that by preventing a formal determination he will somehow continue on in office.  Realistically, the only chance he has is if the Supreme Court overrules the election and declare him a winner.

It won't help him unless the Court tries to call it.  He can't over-extend his prior term, because the 20th-Amendment says his term, and that of VP Pence, ends at noon on January 20th.  If nothing happens to declare a winner, according to the Constitution the presidency goes to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House.

And if the Supreme Court calls it, we may see the military step in.  There is no colorable basis for instating Trump absent actual re-election.

Eilzel wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

oh yeah I remember that, tell me again why he is President.lol

Electoral college. Do you know what that is?

inmyopinion wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

oh yeah I remember that, tell me again why he is President.lol

Electoral college. Do you know what that is?

yep it's a system that determines who wins, so suck it up buttercup, Trump won.

Eilzel wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

yep it's a system that determines who wins, so suck it up buttercup, Trump won.

It determined the less popular candidate won last time. But hey if that is what it takes to get a conservative in...

inmyopinion wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

yep it's a system that determines who wins, so suck it up buttercup, Trump won.

It determined the less popular candidate won last time. But hey if that is what it takes to get a conservative in...

by the least popular you mean the one the lefties didn't want.
so you want a fairer system, in other words, a system that the one you want wins, next you will telling me you believe in democracy. lol

Eilzel wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

by the least popular you mean the one the lefties didn't want.
so you want a fairer system, in other words, a system that the one you want wins, next you will telling me you believe in democracy. lol

I'd want a system where the one who gets the most votes wins. That is democracy.

inmyopinion wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

by the least popular you mean the one the lefties didn't want.
so you want a fairer system, in other words, a system that the one you want wins, next you will telling me you believe in democracy. lol

I'd want a system where the one who gets the most votes wins. That is democracy.

BS, if trump won in everyway you would be equally peeved, the fact they had a vote, the system is what it is an Trump won, that is democracy.

Eilzel wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

by the least popular you mean the one the lefties didn't want.
so you want a fairer system, in other words, a system that the one you want wins, next you will telling me you believe in democracy. lol

I'd want a system where the one who gets the most votes wins. That is democracy.

Eilzel wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

by the least popular you mean the one the lefties didn't want.
so you want a fairer system, in other words, a system that the one you want wins, next you will telling me you believe in democracy. lol

I'd want a system where the one who gets the most votes wins. That is democracy.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

inmyopinion wrote:

by the least popular you mean the one the lefties didn't want.
so you want a fairer system, in other words, a system that the one you want wins, next you will telling me you believe in democracy. lol

I'd want a system where the one who gets the most votes wins. That is democracy.

That's not the way it even works here in the UK...

A party here wins an election by gaining the most MPs, and that is based on a vote in each constituency for each MP...

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


That's not the way it even works here in the UK...

A party here wins an election by gaining the most MPs, and that is based on a vote in each constituency for each MP...

Which makes sense (although still horribly flawed) since we elect MPs and the PM is just the leader of the party that won.

They already have similar in the Senate and Representitives. The Presidency really ought to be the individual chosen by most of the population. The EC is just a decrepit throwback that may have been relevant once but has recently given the win to two less popular candidates.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


That's not the way it even works here in the UK...

A party here wins an election by gaining the most MPs, and that is based on a vote in each constituency for each MP...

Which makes sense (although still horribly flawed) since we elect MPs and the PM is just the leader of the party that won.

They already have similar in the Senate and Representitives. The Presidency really ought to be the individual chosen by most of the population. The EC is just a decrepit throwback that may have been relevant once but has recently given the win to two less popular candidates.

And it happened 3 times before Bush.  As early as 1824.  

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And it happened 3 times before Bush.  As early as 1824.  

About 200 years due a change then!

In terms of concentration though. 2000, 2016 and potentially 2020 could all be years the numerical 'loser' won. As it seems to only favour the Republicans, if I were the Democrats (who'd have won the popular vote in all but 1 election since 1992), I'd get to changing that ASAP.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:He's going to attempt to tie up the results in court, hoping that by preventing a formal determination he will somehow continue on in office. Realistically, the only chance he has is if the Supreme Court overrules the election and declare him a winner.

It won't help him unless the Court tries to call it. He can't over-extend his prior term, because the 20th-Amendment says his term, and that of VP Pence, ends at noon on January 20th. If nothing happens to declare a winner, according to the Constitution the presidency goes to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House.

And if the Supreme Court calls it, we may see the military step in. There is no colorable basis for instating Trump absent actual re-election.

He will pout for a days. None of what you just described is going to happen, unless the results are very close. Once he loses, he will lose all of his support. The Reps will move on to getting ready to fight Biden.

Now what could be interesting is some of the congressional seats. All of the close elections there be drug out in court by whichever party barely lost. No telling how many boxes of ballots will turn up weeks after the election.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

He will pout for a days. None of what you just described is going to happen, unless the results are very close.    Once he loses, he will lose all of his support. The Reps will move on to getting ready to fight Biden.  

Now what could be interesting is some of the congressional seats. All of the close elections there be drug out in court by whichever party barely lost.  No telling how many boxes of ballots will turn up weeks after the election.  

That's one theory.  But it is predicated on a landslide, and Trump still has support of 33+% of the voters in his cult.  The anchor of Trump's base may mean that a landslide cannot happen.

You are an incrementalist, which means you don't necessarily foresee big events when they are coming.  Incrementalists don't see the significance of Donald Trump, or the many huge structural changes to the US that he has brought about.

In 2001 the Republicans used the Supreme Court to elect a president, and that put an end to the political question doctrine (ie: that courts do not intervene in a political question).  I think Trump wants to make that a permanent fixture (with him as incumbent).  In other words, he envisions a dictator with a small council of judges providing legitimacy for his place as head man...perhaps even doing away with the council once he is established.

So, it's more than numbers that is dragging the election into legal action after November 3rd.  There is a definite plan, and it's not business as usual.  It may be no more than that Trump wants to avoid prison, and there again as an incrementalist you don't think that will happen.  But to a man with that kind of power and ego, his incrementalism comes in giant steps.  The mere possibility he might go to prison is enough to motivate him.

Besides, I don't think Trump is smart enough to devise such a plan by himself.  It's not for nothing that he has had daily telephone calls to Putin.

Maddog wrote:Biden will get an electoral landslide.  It will be over Tuesday night.

You're a fucking drama queen with a shitty track record for your fabrications of fantasy.  

You're opinion is less than worthless.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Biden will get an electoral landslide.  It will be over Tuesday night.

You're a fucking drama queen with a shitty track record for your fabrications of fantasy.  

You're opinion is less than worthless.  

Tsk, tsk...you are worried about something I said.     Unfortunately, it's not about me.  It's about predicting up-coming events.

A landslide means nothing if Trump gets the Supreme Court to decide the election his way.  Trump will argue that the votes cast by mail are fraudulent (no matter how many there are), and that he wins thereby.  Indeed, mail-in voting has rocketed since the virus discourages gathering in small places.

The Supreme Court in 2001 did away with the political question doctrine, and seated the Republican candidate (GWB) as president, even though he lost in the tally.  Trump figures: why not do the same thing, with the same result...especially, since he has made the Court even more Republican (6-3) than before (5-4)?

It's the only chance for Republicans to capture the office, given their dwindling numbers in the US electorate, and for Trump to avoid a prison sentence.  Have you noticed Trump's not worried about the polls?  I believe, in his mind it's no longer about the numbers.

Original Quill wrote:The only chance that Trump has is to go outside the electoral process, and try to find authoritarian support.  Courts are authoritarian, and hence the only refuge for Trump.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:Biden will get an electoral landslide.  It will be over Tuesday night.

You're a fucking drama queen with a shitty track record for your fabrications of fantasy.  

You're opinion is less than worthless.  

Tsk, tsk...you are worried about something I said.     Unfortunately, it's not about me.  It's about predicting up-coming events.

A landslide means nothing if Trump gets the Supreme Court to decide the election his way.  Trump will argue that the votes cast by mail are fraudulent (no matter how many there are), and that he wins thereby.  Indeed, mail-in voting has rocketed since the virus discourages gathering in small places.

The Supreme Court in 2001 did away with the political question doctrine, and seated the Republican candidate (GWB) as president, even though he lost in the tally.  Trump figures: why not do the same thing, with the same result...especially, since he has made the Court even more Republican (6-3) than before (5-4)?

It's the only chance for Republicans to capture the office, given their dwindling numbers in the US electorate, and for Trump to avoid a prison sentence.  Have you noticed Trump's not worried about the polls?  I believe, in his mind it's no longer about the numbers.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Tsk, tsk...you are worried about something I said.     Unfortunately, it's not about me.  It's about predicting up-coming events.

A landslide means nothing if Trump gets the Supreme Court to decide the election his way.  Trump will argue that the votes cast by mail are fraudulent (no matter how many there are), and that he wins thereby.  Indeed, mail-in voting has rocketed since the virus discourages gathering in small places.

The Supreme Court in 2001 did away with the political question doctrine, and seated the Republican candidate (GWB) as president, even though he lost in the tally.  Trump figures: why not do the same thing, with the same result...especially, since he has made the Court even more Republican (6-3) than before (5-4)?

It's the only chance for Republicans to capture the office, given their dwindling numbers in the US electorate, and for Trump to avoid a prison sentence.  Have you noticed Trump's not worried about the polls?  I believe, in his mind it's no longer about the numbers.

No, it's not about you jackass. It's about your lying. Bush won the official tally in Florida by 537 votes.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No, it's not about you jackass. It's about your lying. Bush won the official tally in Florida by 537 votes.

Because the Supreme Court ordered the counting stopped.     It was later determined, sub silentio, that Bush lost the Florida vote.

Jesus Christ Red, you southerners are dumber than dog shit to think the public doesn't know.  A Bush governor, runs an election that rigs a Bush presidential election, and a RW Supreme Court sanctions it, but adds the proviso that the opinion cannot be cited as precedent.

How dumb can you guys be?

Ben Reilly wrote:Shouldn't they have recounted until they got it right? Or doesn't democracy matter enough?

Ben Reilly wrote:So order over justice. I see.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Because the Supreme Court ordered the counting stopped.     It was later determined, sub silentio, that Bush lost the Florida vote.

Jesus Christ Red, you southerners are dumber than dog shit to think the public doesn't know.  A Bush governor, runs an election that rigs a Bush presidential election, and a RW Supreme Court sanctions it, but adds the proviso that the opinion cannot be cited as precedent.

How dumb can you guys be?

They recounted for weeks. Yes, the Supreme Court finally cut off the counting 5 weeks after the election because the electoral college was about to meet and Florida's votes had to be assigned to the winner.

The official talley gave the state to Bush, not the Supreme  Court.

How many recounts should there have been?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:So order over justice. I see.

Sometimes a lack of order is a lack of justice.  

They counted long enough and every count came out than same.  

5 weeks to call an election is long enough.