|
Chinese Gordon posted:Yeah I think this has definitely been understated in terms of impact. You're looking at 1m-odd newly eligible voters (actively being registered by voting rights orgs) who are demographically heavily Dem leaning due to the insanely racist justice system. Given that state-wide races in 2018 were decided on margins of less than 100k, that enfranchisement alone would have likely tipped Florida blue, all else being equal. And of course all else is definitely not equal! unfortunately it's dramatically complicated by the ongoing attempt to stop anyone who owes any money to any court for any reason from being able to vote. i'm maybe more optimistic than most that a lot of people can still be registered, but they will successfully dampen the number of registrations by making it all so confusing we just won in court and look to be on the path to winning that anyone who can show they don't have the ability to pay will still be able to register, but we're not there yet, and there's going to be a lot of burden on individuals even if we do win that (i'd note that in florida nothing is centralized, so if you might owe multiple courts money you have to call each court, you can't just go easily look online and confirm if you're good or not. it's honestly a nightmare even if you're trying your hardest to figure it out) eke out fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jun 16, 2020 |
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:32 |
|
|
eke out posted:unfortunately it's dramatically complicated by the ongoing attempt to stop anyone who owes any money to any court for any reason from being able to vote. i'm maybe more optimistic than most that a lot of people can still be registered, but they will successfully dampen the number of registrations by making it all so confusing We are there; the state's request for a hold on that order allowing indebted felons to register was denied: https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2020/06/15/florida-judge-refuses-to-put-felons-voting-rights-decision-on-hold/ They will obviously appeal but in the meantime felons can register and it seems clear to me the decision will stand given the strength of the initial opinion. Maybe someone with relevant legal experience could comment?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
I am familiar with the litigation, have been following closely, and actively work in this field. The Eleventh Circuit is highly likely to gently caress us (to use the professional term for it). We drew a liberal appointee at trial and three liberal justices on a conservative-majority circuit for the initial interlocutory appeal, and it is very likely that the conservative majority of one of the most partisan circuits in the country is not going to uphold this if/when they accept it en banc. If by some miracle the 11th does not gently caress us, I'll be incredibly happy, but I'll believe it when I see it. eke out fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jun 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
eke out posted:I am familiar with the litigation, have been following closely, and actively work in this field. Look, Judge William Pryor is a very reasonable and principled juristahahahahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
I confess I've not being following it super closely and I have no legal expertise, but it doesn't seem to me at all guaranteed that the state will even get its en banc hearing. The 11th denied a previous request for an en banc hearing against the original 17-felon injunction after all. Not sure if there's any grounds to think they wouldn't deny it again for the trial result?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 21:54
|
|
|
A preliminary injunction applied to a dozen people before trial does not hurt conservative goals; a final order post-trial allowing hundreds of thousands of people to register to vote does. There's your grounds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 21:56
|
|
|
But it's essentially the same decision, using the same legal reasoning and being appealed using the same arguments. Surely the chudges on the 11th could have anticipated this trial result and granted en banc to the injunction appeal to give themselves cover later on? If they grant it now there's not even the merest pretense of fairness.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
Chinese Gordon posted:But it's essentially the same decision, using the same legal reasoning and being appealed using the same arguments. Surely the chudges on the 11th could have anticipated this trial result and granted en banc to the injunction appeal to give themselves cover later on? If they grant it now there's not even the merest pretense of fairness. It's not really the same analysis, before they could simply say "Look, we'll review this once trial's complete" and look nonpartisan. But now, as DeSantis argues, if they don't grant immediately en banc appellate review, they risk the panel taking long enough that we end up having to let all these people vote in November, and then the full circuit could turn around shortly after and overturn their decision. What they're asking for is actually a lot more extraordinary than before, but they have a not-totally-insane public policy argument that this issue needs to be resolved before the elections and it can't if we just give it to a new random 3-judge panel. In any normal circumstances, this would be denied. But it's a bad time to expect normalcy, especially with this circuit (we can hope, though). eke out fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Jun 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
Chinese Gordon posted:But it's essentially the same decision, using the same legal reasoning and being appealed using the same arguments. Surely the chudges on the 11th could have anticipated this trial result and granted en banc to the injunction appeal to give themselves cover later on? If they grant it now there's not even the merest pretense of fairness. welcome to the republican party. fairness is not in their ideals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
On convention chat I know this is boring but surely the trump campaign can reneg on paying the convention centre as contractually they were expecting x capacity but now will only get y? Regardless I do wonder how all these little cuts in states that aren’t necessarily deep red will hurt him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
Even Trump's internal polls are showing him he's hosed. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trumps-internal-polling-data-march-showed-joe/story?id=63718268 quote:The polling data, revealed for the first time by ABC News, showed a double-digit lead for Biden in Pennsylvania 55-39 and Wisconsin 51-41 and had Biden leading by seven points in Florida. In Texas, a Republican stronghold, the numbers showed the president only leading by two points.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 23:08
|
|
|
Technowrite posted:Even Trump's internal polls are showing him he's hosed. This was BEFORE the last two months wow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 23:11
|
|
|
Trump is gonna have a lot of lawsuits to file
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 23:15
|
|
|
Technowrite posted:Even Trump's internal polls are showing him he's hosed. Clearly this is a result of his polls also taking into account "massive voter fraud" from the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:This was BEFORE the last two months wow. Yeah, it was a full TWELVE months before. That's an article from June 2019. When they started talking about "yeah, that was before the Mueller report exonerated Trupm" I went back and checked the date.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
Wylie posted:Yeah, it was a full TWELVE months before. That's an article from June 2019. When they started talking about "yeah, that was before the Mueller report exonerated Trupm" I went back and checked the date. lol oops, well at least I was technically correct
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 23:45
|
|
|
Technowrite posted:Even Trump's internal polls are showing him he's hosed. I really don't trust this. It's too long ago, the lead is too strong, and we're in a completely different environment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 01:39
|
|
|
I think this is a key difference between 2016: Trump is running with a record, and his record specifically discourages moderate voters https://twitter.com/ForecasterEnten/status/1272995489747697670 quote:Trump’s stances led voters to believe he was relatively moderate for a Republican — or at least that he was ideologically idiosyncratic. More voters viewed Trump as liberal than any incoming GOP president since at least Ronald Reagan, and fewer voters viewed him as conservative than any Republican since at least Reagan. That stood in stark contrast to Clinton, whom the clear majority of voters saw as liberal. Trump’s ideological positioning relative to Clinton’s may have been one of the reasons he was able to pull off a slim Electoral College victory against her. I think this is a big reason we've seen a flight of moderate, suburban voters away for Trump - and I don't know he gets them back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
Trumps losing seniors and even some evangelicals. That's nearly catastrophic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 03:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1272666134991560705 Yikes. I wonder what these polls mean - does it mean that Trump is going to have spend time and effort on the battleground states? Or does he ignore them (and tell his advisors to ignore them, which they do), and spend all his time campaigning in MI where he's down double digits? Could be the reverse 2016 - where he ignores 'safe' states... that aren't safe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 03:10
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1272666134991560705 If he barely wins Iowa and similar states he’s hosed anyway. So he might as well just assume he’s going to win it and work on the important states and hope a national swing puts Iowa back solidly in his column.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 03:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If he barely wins Iowa and similar states he’s hosed anyway. So he might as well just assume he’s going to win it and work on the important states and hope a national swing puts Iowa back solidly in his column. basically the only reason for trump to spend time in iowa would be to raise money for Ernst so as to not lose the Senate too but that assumes that trump is going to do anything to help other republicans when his own election is itself in huge trouble, which seems unlikely. also those people in at-risk seats may prefer it if he stays away
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 03:36
|
|
|
eke out posted:basically the only reason for trump to spend time in iowa would be to raise money for Ernst so as to not lose the Senate too Didn't the same thing happen in 2016 and 2018? Of course, Trump showed up anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
2020 Trump is already actively attacking Republican Senators who dare criticize him on Twitter (in hopes of keeping their seats) so I think someone asking him to stay away would go over really well
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 04:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If he barely wins Iowa and similar states he’s hosed anyway. So he might as well just assume he’s going to win it and work on the important states and hope a national swing puts Iowa back solidly in his column. So Clinton's 2016 strategy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 05:18
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:I think this is a key difference between 2016: Trump is running with a record, and his record specifically discourages moderate voters I agree. There was also a lot of coverage that allowed Trump to seem like anything--even a "progressive". It was stupid then but it would be impossible to run now. No one is buying "Donald the real LGBT Ally" in 2020. Key demos who thought he was "worth a shot" now understand the real nature of the race much better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 07:34
|
|
|
I would have never thought Florida would be in play, even after all the terrible poo poo that has happened. And then a 10 point lead?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 13:17
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:So Clinton's 2016 strategy? no. clinton needed to win PA/MI/WI and she had the race won. the criticism of clinton was she spent time going for a landslide over making sure she actually won. a rough analogy to donald trump in Iowa in 2020 would be something like Clinton polling about even in New Mexico: if New Mexico was close, then Clinton wasn't close, she was hosed. there would be no point in trying to shore up New Mexico because if New Mexico was in play she'd already lost, even if she barely held on (unless there was something bizzarely specific to New Mexico). her only hope of winning would have been a national shift to get the race back to even, and then win the key swing states. so in that circumstance, the correct Clinton approach would still have been to campaign in PA/MI/WI: spending time shoring up New Mexico would have been wasted. if biden has an 8-10 point lead - which is what iowa being in play suggests - then trump is utterly hosed. he has no hope of victory, even if he holds iowa - and trump's weakness in iowa appears to be reflective of national weakness, not iowa-specific weakness. but it's june: things could turn around. so the correct trump strategy is to just assume things will turn around or to focus on turning things around nationally. if he turns the national race around, iowa falls back into his column without any effort and any iowa-specific effort was wasted. if he doesn't, who cares if he loses by 150 EVs instead of 140, and any iowa-specific effort was wasted. so trump's best strategy is to focus his state-specific resources on the real tipping point states (AZ, WI), and any swing states where he thinks that he can do better than his national average would suggest through specific state efforts. and then, you know, focus his efforts on not continually doing idiotic things that lead to him being 8-10 points down nationally. fortunately trump will likely not be doing the last one. focusing efforts on shoring up safe republican states may help republicans in the senate under a biden administration - mitch cares deeply about if republicans barely win iowa in a landslide trump loss - but we all know trump could not care less about how republicans do if he doesn't win
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 15:02
|
|
|
If Trump were a party loyalist and was convinced he'd probably lose re-election anyway, he could spend resources in Iowa to at least make it more likely the GOP keep the Senate seat (and thus the Senate.) But he's not and he probably doesn't give a poo poo who controls the Senate if he's not going to be president any more. EDIT: Oh I missed that part of EW's post saying basically the same thing 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 15:29
|
|
|
My apologies on posting a year-old article. I saw it, and of course, forgot to check the time stamp on it like a dingus. Also, thanks for this thread. I keep venturing into the USPOL thread and hating it because no one is talking about the state of the race.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 17:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:focusing efforts on shoring up safe republican states may help republicans in the senate under a biden administration - mitch cares deeply about if republicans barely win iowa in a landslide trump loss - but we all know trump could not care less about how republicans do if he doesn't win I feel like his main concern right now is finding out who will keep buying officially licensed Maga-hats and other merch five years from now. Because it's an open question leaning on "No" whether his base will still be his base when he's no longer the guy in the White House who Talks Like Them
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
Technowrite posted:Also, thanks for this thread. I keep venturing into the USPOL thread and hating it because no one is talking about the state of the race. The topic is generally verboten in USPOL in an effort to keep the thread at least somewhat readable. The General Election thread is a more comprehensive look at the race, but tends to focus on topics outside the scope of this thread. While discussing the meta-- do people have a preference on how this coexists with the (mostly moribund) State and Local thread? Do we want to keep this White House only, or are posts (hewing to similar rules) for Senate, House, and gubernatorial races appropriate here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 17:48
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:The topic is generally verboten in USPOL in an effort to keep the thread at least somewhat readable. The General Election thread is a more comprehensive look at the race, but tends to focus on topics outside the scope of this thread. It seems like the house and senate are very tied up with the top-line race, but that governorships/state legislatures are less so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
Where and how down-ballot splitting happens is an interesting subject id love to see more on that would fit here. I'm skeptical of how much we might reverse the gerrymander if the nominee is also trying to rehab the Republican party and pretend that they are good outside of Trumpism.
Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Jun 17, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 17:55
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Where and how down-ballot splitting happens is an interesting subject id love to see more on that would fit here. I'm skeptical of how much we might reverse the gerrymander if the nominee is also trying to rehab the Republican party and pretend that they are good outside of Trumpism. Do you mean splitting in the sense of people not voting for Biden but voting straight blue otherwise, or Republicans voting red up until Trump, and then splitting? I think we might see both happen, although the polls suggest we're going to see far more of the latter than the former. I think its hard to know how much of 2020 is a referendum on Trump vs. a referendum on the Republican Party paired with a General Election. 2018 would suggest that voters hold Republicans at all levels responsible for Trump. I think what also complicates this is any sane presidential candidate would allow down ballot candidates to create distance from him (i.e. Susan Collins should desperately be talking about defunding the police and health care), but Trump is so childish and ill-disciplined that he publicly attacks anyone who even offers the barest whisper of criticism towards him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Do you mean splitting in the sense of people not voting for Biden but voting straight blue otherwise, or Republicans voting red up until Trump, and then splitting? I think we might see both happen, although the polls suggest we're going to see far more of the latter than the former. I think its hard to know how much of 2020 is a referendum on Trump vs. a referendum on the Republican Party paired with a General Election. 2018 would suggest that voters hold Republicans at all levels responsible for Trump. I think wh xxat also complicates this is any sane presidential candidate would allow down ballot candidates to create distance from him (i.e. Susan Collins should desperately be talking about defunding the police and health care), but Trump is so childish and ill-disciplined that he publicly attacks anyone who even offers the barest whisper of criticism towards him. both are interesting but I agree that the latter is more likely to be common in this election and is more specifically relevant to what's going to happen down-ballot
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 19:11
|
|
|
One thing that I think is kind of unique from an electoral sense about Trump is just how actively hostile everything he does is. He wasn't like this in 2016 - I remember watching that stupid charity dinner they do in the days before the election where the candidates make jokes, and Trump actually made a half-hearted effort at a funny joke ("Michelle gives a speech and everyone cheers, Melania gives the same speech and everyone boos!") - like there was at least a whisper of magnanimity in an effort to appeal to moderates. But at this point he's abhorrent in all ways - even in an aesthetic way that is offputting to people who agree with him ideologically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:Do you mean splitting in the sense of people not voting for Biden but voting straight blue otherwise, or Republicans voting red up until Trump, and then splitting? I think we might see both happen, although the polls suggest we're going to see far more of the latter than the former. I think its hard to know how much of 2020 is a referendum on Trump vs. a referendum on the Republican Party paired with a General Election. 2018 would suggest that voters hold Republicans at all levels responsible for Trump. I think what also complicates this is any sane presidential candidate would allow down ballot candidates to create distance from him (i.e. Susan Collins should desperately be talking about defunding the police and health care), but Trump is so childish and ill-disciplined that he publicly attacks anyone who even offers the barest whisper of criticism towards him. Biden's lead also tends to match generic congressional ballot polls in this election, suggesting that people are not drawing a meaningful distinction between Trump and Other Republicans. A large part of that has been Trump forcing people out of the party who tried to disassociate themselves with him, and make sure everyone in office was tied to him for good or ill. It's kind of an effective strategy for personal survival, he has made sure republicans can't try to throw him out to save themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Would anyone like to place bets on how bad Mitch's internal polling looks right now? https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1273283161984839681
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:32 |
|
|
Frabba posted:Would anyone like to place bets on how bad Mitch's internal polling looks right now? Oh he must be truly desperate 
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2020 20:33
|
|