Wilson.Uh, is this directed towards me or Wilson? I didn't know he was forbidden here.
That's what they did in 2010. Read about Operation REDMAP.You know, the conventional wisdom was it would be impossible to rig an american election because how fragmented our voting system, often down to individual counties running their own systems. But, with enough knowledge of the electorate, and how polarized we are, you could probably swing an election by only targeting a handful of counties across a few states.
Also my guess is Harley ends up winning by 4-6% when it's all said and done, in a seat that Hillary only won in a plurality by 2%.
Are we expecting Coconino's remaining ballots to be more Republican than the county currently stands? It's 62/35 at the moment.OH Predictive Insights's spreadsheet is updated again. The estimated win by Sinema went from 22,000 to 33,500, but open question is still Maricopa. Still, I think it's getting to point where McSally needs a miracle there.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nHUiVE8z9yuTFFvR85DWdF4ZWeY1NBem8W54G-GFWZg/edit#gid=0
Also they have 0 ballots for Coconino, which is wrong. It's 10k. So another edge of ~500 - ~1000 for Sinema there.
It's not about the crimes they would be charged with. It's about the principle of charging former elected officials, especially when a new party takes power.I think it's very different circumstances, unless I'm misremembering Bush/Cheney. They were essentially "war crimes" and lying to the public. Trump is all manner of things that relate to everything from campaign staffing issues and liaising with unregistered foreign agents, to campaign finance fraud/misrepresentation, as well as the (fairly obvious) Obstruction of Justice. They're very different ballgames, as Bush/Cheney indicting would effectively kneecap future Presidents and VPs with regards to foreign policy, whilst Trump (and Pence?) is personal criminal liability. It sets a worse precedent to pardon/sweetheart deal Trump than it does to indict/prosecute.
It's about criminalizing things they do in office with the powers of the office. Trump's shit is not that.It's not about the crimes they would be charged with. It's about the principle of charging former elected officials, especially when a new party takes power.
The precedent of not criminalizing former leaders is already set in this country, and longstanding. I don't think Trump being so uniquely a real piece of shit changes the equation all that much.
That is why Obama shut down any attempt to hold his predecessors criminally liable, and it's why I fully expect Trump to escape any serious charge.
We talked about this a bit in the Discord last night, and not that it's necessarily his best move but I strongly disagree with the notion that Cornyn would be a worse opponent for O'Rourke than Cruz if he decided to give it another run.
Sure, he'd have advantages - namely that he's less controversial. But Beto could also turn that to his advantage, being the young, fresh face a lot of Texans are clearly desiring against an old establishment hack who doesn't have much of his own brand. Cruz at least had the true believers on his side.
And while Cornyn cleaned up in his last election, that was also during a midterm year with pitiful turnout. In fact there were almost double as many votes cast in the Senate race this year than in 2014. The last year with comparable turnout - 2008 - Cornyn only won by 12 points.
I mean, I'm all for O'Rourke doing whatever. If he winds up on the presidential ticket, decides to run for Senate again, or holds off until governor in 2022 - I think he'd succeed at whatever he set out to do.
Someone mentioned on Twitter as well how Nate didn't control North Carolina for the fact that Walter Jones (R) ran unopposed, and if you factor that in Democrats actually got more votes. I don't know the extent to which that's true, but it's fertile ground for us in any case and we can't afford not to compete everywhere.
Nice avatar
Nope, should be Sinema-favored.Are we expecting Coconino's remaining ballots to be more Republican than the county currently stands? It's 62/35 at the moment.
It's not about the crimes they would be charged with. It's about the principle of charging former elected officials, especially when a new party takes power.
Also my guess is Harley ends up winning by 4-6% when it's all said and done, in a seat that Hillary only won in a plurality by 2%.
I don't see an overriding interest in prosecuting the crimes he committed prior to taking office.It's about criminalizing things they do in office with the powers of the office. Trump's shit is not that.
I'm not so sure they won't stand down as long as he's out of office.People are tired of this and they've had enough, hence the some 1000 protests this week. They don't want this investigation or any resulting proceedings shut down by anyone, no matter who succeeds Trump. The magnitude of public participation in reaction to this presidency is different this time.
Funny story, betting odds for Sinema were 5 to 1 two days ago
I don't see an overriding interest in prosecuting the crimes he committed prior to taking office.
Maher isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. The numbers and geography of the election is literally a blue wave. Yeah, we didn't get a tsunami, whatever.
That he's not charged or jailed for the crimes doesn't mean they're never investigated.Which essentially says that whatever crimes he committed - fraud, tax evasion, illegally acquired emails, campaign finance fraud - aren't crimes if you win, and that there's no reason for others to not commit them as long as they win.
His argument is that the Trump admin will just ignore everything because no one will enforce the law without the senate
His argument is that the Trump admin will just ignore everything because no one will enforce the law without the senate
Hes not wrong but saying Tuesday was just ok is just being a miserable defeatist.
That he's not charged or jailed for the crimes doesn't mean they're never investigated.
I fully expect investigations and new Congressional oversight to shed further light on all his crimes, past and present. I just don't think that he will ever see jail time, and I think that's ultimately what's best for the country (like it or not, we all have to try to live together, at least as long as we can before everything really goes to hell).
And yes, if you win the presidency of the United States of America, that means there's some consequences you'll never have to face.
That's America. Powerful people escape punishment every day.I feel that it would do more harm than good for investigations to say "he committed all these crimes... But we'll let him go because 'there's some consequences you never have to face if you're a former President'". That feels like the very opposite of justice, and I think it would fracture society even more than it currently is, as it's literally just "This white man committed tons of crimes, failed upward to the highest office in the land, and won't suffer any repercussions". :/
That's America. Powerful people escape punishment every day.
You talk about fracturing society, but you have to recognize that a lot of people voted for this man and continue to support him. Jailing the opposition is not American tradition, and it never should be, even if it means we have to let a bad man escape punishment for his bad acts (and to be clear, most of the crimes we're talking about are garden-variety corruption).
And nobody is saying he won't face any repercussions. At the very least, I hope we're able to take all his money away once he leaves office.
I hope this mess with Whitaker gets even worse for Trump & Co. I do find it absolutely hilarious though that Lindsey Graham has been licking Trump's balls for the better part of the year trying to get that AG position, and Trump didn't even have him in the running.
I agree that he needs to be a pariah when this nightmare finally ends.I don't care if Trump never serves jail time, I just want him to finally be shamed and disgraced.
I don't care if Trump never serves jail time, I just want him to finally be shamed and disgraced.